The mechanical properties of cytoskeletal networks are intimately involved in determining how forces and cellular processes are generated, directed, and transmitted in living cells. However, determining the mechanical properties of subcellular molecular complexes in vivo has proven to be difficult. Here, we combine in vivo measurements by optical microscopy, X-ray diffraction, and transmission electron microscopy with theoretical modeling to decipher the mechanical properties of the magnetosome chain system encountered in magnetotactic bacteria. We exploit the magnetic properties of the endogenous intracellular nanoparticles to apply a force on the filament-connector pair involved in the backbone formation and stabilization. We show that the magnetosome chain can be broken by the application of external field strength higher than 30 mT and suggest that this originates from the rupture of the magnetosome connector MamJ. In addition, we calculate that the biological determinants can withstand in vivo a force of 25 pN. This quantitative understanding provides insights for the design of functional materials such as actuators and sensors using cellular components.
The mechanical properties of cytoskeletal networks are intimately involved in determining how forces and cellular processes are generated, directed, and transmitted in living cells. However, determining the mechanical properties of subcellular molecular complexes in vivo has proven to be difficult. Here, we combine in vivo measurements by optical microscopy, X-ray diffraction, and transmission electron microscopy with theoretical modeling to decipher the mechanical properties of the magnetosome chain system encountered in magnetotactic bacteria. We exploit the magnetic properties of the endogenous intracellular nanoparticles to apply a force on the filament-connector pair involved in the backbone formation and stabilization. We show that the magnetosome chain can be broken by the application of external field strength higher than 30 mT and suggest that this originates from the rupture of the magnetosome connector MamJ. In addition, we calculate that the biological determinants can withstand in vivo a force of 25 pN. This quantitative understanding provides insights for the design of functional materials such as actuators and sensors using cellular components.
The mechanical
properties of
cells are of primary importance for the understanding of force transduction,
which in turn impacts physiological and pathological states.[1] Cytoskeletal proteins are typically involved
in cellular substructures that are associated with the sensing and
transmission of mechanical signals[2] with
impact on cellular processes including cell shape, division, polarity,
and motility.[3,4] Therefore, considerable efforts
have been spent on characterizing the mechanical properties of cytoskeletal
filaments. However, determining such properties for molecular complexes
in vivo has proven to be difficult.In vitro measurements are
typically performed on purified cell
components such as, e.g., cytoskeletal proteins by rheometry,[5] atomic force microscopy,[6] optical microscopy,[7] or some combination
of them.[8] However, in vitro studies only
give semiquantitative information about cytoskeletal filaments since
the measurements involve interaction with extra-cellular objects[7] or because the fabricated filaments lack the
scaffolding complexity and might therefore not fully reflect the complexity
observed in vivo.[6] In vivo measurements
rely on bead addition[9] or use a spatially
unresolved application of stress.[10] In
particular, magnetic beads were one of the first probes used for the
in vivo determination of mechanical properties of macromolecular scaffolds.[11] Meanwhile, magnetic nanoparticles have emerged
as promising tools to tune molecular responses such as, e.g., microtubule
assembly[12] or cell death.[13]However, synthetic nanoparticles can have detrimental
effects on,
e.g., intracellular tension and cellular migration.[14] Thus, an unbiased characterization technique or a proper
biological system for the probing of such molecular forces in vivo
remains to be found. In the meantime, magnetotactic bacteria provide
a unique opportunity for studying cell mechanics since they biomineralize
endogenous magnetite nanoparticles called magnetosomes, which are
organelles produced for the navigation in aquatic habitats along magnetic
field lines.[15] Magnetosomes comprise membrane-enveloped,
nanosized crystals that are intracellularly organized in chains.[16] The molecular players involved in the chain
formation have been largely unraveled in the magnetospirilla,[17−23] for which genetic modifications are possible, and therefore have
established as generic model systems in magnetotactic bacteria. MamK,
a member of the actin family, forms the magnetosome filament to which
magnetosome vesicles attach with the help of MamJ, the magnetosome
connector. The alignment of bacteria in an external magnetic field
is based on a mechanically stable MamJ/MamK interaction in order to
effectively rotate the cells. If MamK is also present in other strains,
this is not the case of MamJ.[24] Since no
genetic systems are established for these strains, much less is known
about the molecular players involved in biomineralization, but other
proteins might play a similar role as it has, e.g., been shown that
LimJ can play a redundant function to MamJ in Magnetospirillum
magneticum AMB-1.[21] Magnetic nanoparticles
are thus naturally present within these microorganisms and are bound
to a well characterized macromolecular scaffold. Therefore, the magnetospirillum system represents an ideal model for the
testing of intracellular mechanical forces in vivo without the need
of additional exogenous reporter particles. Moreover, with the recent
success in expressing the magnetotactic genes in a foreign organism,[25] this approach to mechanical probing of the cells
may become more widely applicable.Here, we present a study
of the mechanical properties of the magnetosomes
particles attached to the magnetosome filament via the magnetosome
connector. We make use of the magnetic properties of the magnetosomes
to exert a force on the filament–connector couple by rotating
an external magnetic field around mechanically fixed living bacteria.
We use a combination of optical and electron microscopy, synchrotron-based
X-ray diffraction (XRD) and theoretical calculations to show that
the magnetosome chains are mechanically extremely stable since they
remain unaffected by external magnetic field of strength lower than
30 mT, which is about 500 times the strength of the Earth magnetic
field of 50 to 60 μT. We finally identify the magnetosome connector
MamJ as the weakest part of the network and calculate that the proteineous
material can withstand a force of 25 pN, a measure obtained in a living
system.
Potential Effect of Magnetic Field Rotation around Magnetotactic
Bacteria
Magnetotactic bacteria passively align in external
magnetic fields thanks to their magnetosome chain (Figure 1A,B). In this study, we aim at preventing this alignment
to probe the inner substructures of the cell with forces arising from
an external magnetic field. Therefore, a fixing method is required,
rigid enough to hold the bacteria but soft and hydrating enough not
to kill them. If so, rotation of a magnet around the cells exerts
forces directly on intracellular substructures. It is, however, not
clear at what level these forces affect the magnetosome chain. The
magnetosome filament is either deformed so that the whole chain aligns
with the field (Figure 1F) or the magnetosomes
themselves are turned (Figure 1M,N). These
different cases are studied and presented below.
Figure 1
Possible effects of rotating
a magnetic field B (in blue) around
a magnetotactic bacterium. Cell, chain, and particle are initially
aligned with the external field (A, scheme; B, transmission electron
microscope (TEM) image of cells aligned on a grid). While the direction
of the field is changed, the whole bacterium will rotate in the absence
of any support (C). The bacteria are fixed if embedded in an agarose
gel as shown by optical microscopy: bacteria in the presence of a
magnetic field of 150 mT in different field directions (before and
after rotation of the field by 90° in, respectively, D and E).
The bacteria do not align with the external field in this case. Another
possibility for fixed bacteria is that the magnetosome chain rotates
as a single entity (F). Optical microscopic transmission (G,J), fluorescence
(H,K), and overlay (I,L) images of fixed mCherry-MamK labeled cells
before (G, H, and I) and after (J, K, and L) perturbation by changes
in the field orientation show no evident displacement of the magnetosome
filament. Finally, the individual magnetosome particles could turn
(M, and larger view in N), which we studied by X-ray diffraction (O).
Possible effects of rotating
a magnetic field B (in blue) around
a magnetotactic bacterium. Cell, chain, and particle are initially
aligned with the external field (A, scheme; B, transmission electron
microscope (TEM) image of cells aligned on a grid). While the direction
of the field is changed, the whole bacterium will rotate in the absence
of any support (C). The bacteria are fixed if embedded in an agarose
gel as shown by optical microscopy: bacteria in the presence of a
magnetic field of 150 mT in different field directions (before and
after rotation of the field by 90° in, respectively, D and E).
The bacteria do not align with the external field in this case. Another
possibility for fixed bacteria is that the magnetosome chain rotates
as a single entity (F). Optical microscopic transmission (G,J), fluorescence
(H,K), and overlay (I,L) images of fixed mCherry-MamK labeled cells
before (G, H, and I) and after (J, K, and L) perturbation by changes
in the field orientation show no evident displacement of the magnetosome
filament. Finally, the individual magnetosome particles could turn
(M, and larger view in N), which we studied by X-ray diffraction (O).We used commercially available
low melt agarose, which gels at
24–28 °C, to immobilize living bacteria.[26] Briefly, the bacteria are placed in an agarose solution
cooled at 30 °C. By placing the suspension in a magnetic field
of 150 mT, the bacteria aligned with the field. The fixation of the
bacteria is obtained by cooling the sample to 4 °C. After such
a treatment, the bacteria are no longer able to move when the external
field orientation is changed (Figure 1D,E)
but remain alive.
Magnetosome Filament Does Not Show High Flexibility
We then tested the properties of the magnetosome filament and thus
performed the same experiment as above but using a genetically engineered
strain (Figure 1F). mCherry-MamK exhibits fluorescence
around the magnetosome filament as the related MamK-GFP strain.[27] If the magnetosome chain, which is usually depicted
as a single magnetic dipole,[28,29] rotates as a whole,
possibly with some deformation due to its confinements within the
cell, the field rotation should be reported at the filament level.
However, the fluorescent signal is independent of the magnetic field
direction (Figure 1G–L). We note that
small changes in the filament position cannot be detected due to the
resolution limit of fluorescence microscopy of about 250 nm. Nevertheless,
this observation indicates that the magnetosome filament, made of
the actin-like protein MamK, is not easily deformed by the torque
exerted on the magnetosomes by the external magnetic field.
The crystal
orientation of magnetite particles inside dried bacteria
can be followed by 2D XRD.[30] We proceed
similarly with our immobilized cells. The living bacteria are mounted
in a way that the direction of alignment is perpendicular to the beam
(Figure 1N). The obtained 2D diffraction shows
an amorphous halo, originating from the water in the agarose. Apart
from this signal, several diffraction rings are detected. After azimuthal
integration, the position of the rings (the peaks in the diffractogram
I (Q)) can be assigned to magnetite[31] (Figure
S1B, Supporting Information). Furthermore,
a fiber texture is observed, i.e., the intensity distribution along
the Debye rings is nonuniform.[32] The intensity
variations of the Debye rings along the azimuth angle I(γ), evaluated by radial integration and local background subtraction
of the 2D pattern (see methods), reveals a [111] fiber axis, meaning
that the magnetite crystals have one of their [111] directions parallel
to each other.
Magnetosome Crystals Rotate with Large External
Magnetic Field
Strength, Not with Small Ones
The magnetosome crystal orientation
is that of the observed fiber axis. Thus, if the direction of the
fiber axis ψ shifts within the plane perpendicular to the beam,
a shift of the azimuthal intensity variation I(γ)
is observed. By analyzing the shift of the I(γ
+ ψ), the direction of the fiber axis ψ can be measured
and thereby the orientation of magnetite crystals (Figure S1C-E, Supporting Information).As described above,
we observe a textured intensity profile for all XRD measurements.
In the case of the rotation of a strong magnetic field with a strength
of 35 mT or larger (Figure 2A,B), a change
of the angle of the applied magnetic field (Ω) leads to a change
of the texture in the 2D X-ray pattern. In particular, the profiles
look similar for different field angles (Figure 2A), and the shifts are strongly correlated with the angle of the
external field (Figure 2B). Plotting the angle
of the fiber axis ψ against the angle of the magnetic field
Ω indeed yields a linear dependence (slope 1.004 ± 0.007, R2 = 0.992). This shows that the orientation
of the crystals follow the direction of the magnetic field.
Figure 2
Influence of
external magnetic fields with different field strengths.
In fields stronger than 30 mT (A,B), the crystals rotate with the
applied field. Below 30 mT (C,D), the crystals are maintained in their
original orientation. Ψ is the direction of the measured fiber
axis, and Ω is the angle of the applied magnetic field.
Influence of
external magnetic fields with different field strengths.
In fields stronger than 30 mT (A,B), the crystals rotate with the
applied field. Below 30 mT (C,D), the crystals are maintained in their
original orientation. Ψ is the direction of the measured fiber
axis, and Ω is the angle of the applied magnetic field.Reducing the field strength to
30 mT or below, the effect of changing
the external field direction is dramatically different (Figure 2C,D). The direction of the fiber axis ψ of
the texture profile is no longer following the direction of the external
field Ω. The direction of the majority of the crystals does
not rotate with the field but stays at or close to its initial position
of 0° (Figure 2D). Thus, for these field
strengths, the crystals withstand the torque exerted by the external
field and maintain their original orientation.
Magnetic Interparticle
Interactions Alone Cannot Explain the
Observed Pattern of Rotation
A theoretical framework is thus
developed to understand the effect of the field strength on crystal
orientation. We describe the magnetosome chain as N freely rotating interacting magnetic dipoles with fixed positions
in space and consider the energy contributions of the magnetic interactions
between magnetosomes (internal field) and of the external magnetic
field exerted by the rotating magnets. The energy is writtenFor a chain of N magnetosomes
with individual dipole moment of m, the interaction
with the external field results inThe approximation originates from the assumption
that all dipoles have the same magnetic moment m and
the same angle α with respect to the chain axis (Figure S3, Supporting Information).The internal field
experienced by a given magnetosome within the chain is composed of
the influence of the field of all the other magnetic dipoles of the
chain. This energy contribution is calculated by the dipole–dipole
interactions (see methods/Supporting Information). With the same approximation that all magnetosomes have the same
angle with respect to the chain axis, it can be written asHere Bint characterizes
the field strength that one dipole experiences due to the presence
of the other dipoles in the chain and depends on the geometric parameters
(particle radius and separation) as well as on material parameters
(see methods). The energetically most favorable state is obtained
by minimizing the total energy with respect to α. In Figure 3A this angle is shown as a function of the angle
of the external field Ω for 3 different field strengths (20,
35, and 150 mT). For the calculations, a chain of 20 crystals with
a crystal radius of 20 nm and an interparticle distance of 10 nm is
used, in agreement with literature values,[15] leading to an internal field strength Bint ≈ 15 mT.
Figure 3
(A) Calculated orientation (angle α) of the dipole
moments
of crystals arranged in a chain dependent manner with an external
field at an angle Ω. Different field strengths are shown (black,
150 mT; red, 35 mT; blue, 20 mT). The crystal radius is r = 20 nm, the interparticle distance d = 10 nm (d/2r = 0.25), and the number of crystals N = 20 for the thick lines. The light areas represent an
error zone where the d/2r values
are changed from 0.34 (upper line, representative value of d = 10 nm and r = 15 nm) to 0.17 (lower
line, d = 10 nm and r = 30 nm).
Angles are denoted with respect to the chain axis. (B) Experimentally
measured orientation of the [111] direction of magnetosome crystals
in magnetotactic bacteria (which corresponds to the direction of the
magnetization) at the corresponding field strengths (same colors as
in panel A). The large discrepancies obtained for 35 mT are explained
in the text.
(A) Calculated orientation (angle α) of the dipole
moments
of crystals arranged in a chain dependent manner with an external
field at an angle Ω. Different field strengths are shown (black,
150 mT; red, 35 mT; blue, 20 mT). The crystal radius is r = 20 nm, the interparticle distance d = 10 nm (d/2r = 0.25), and the number of crystals N = 20 for the thick lines. The light areas represent an
error zone where the d/2r values
are changed from 0.34 (upper line, representative value of d = 10 nm and r = 15 nm) to 0.17 (lower
line, d = 10 nm and r = 30 nm).
Angles are denoted with respect to the chain axis. (B) Experimentally
measured orientation of the [111] direction of magnetosome crystals
in magnetotactic bacteria (which corresponds to the direction of the
magnetization) at the corresponding field strengths (same colors as
in panel A). The large discrepancies obtained for 35 mT are explained
in the text.The theoretical model
we developed presents a steady increase of
α with increasing Ω (Figure 3A).
At low field strength, the particles are nearly not following the
external field, even for high angles (e.g., α(Ω = 90°, B = 20 mT) ≈ 15°) because the internal forces
are larger than the external forces. The interactions between the
magnetic moments of the magnetosomes stabilize the crystal orientation
in its initial position. At high field strength, the particle orientation
is nearly matching that of the external field (α(Ω = 90°
,B = 150 mT) ≈ 90°). In this case, the
external forces become larger, and the interaction between the magnetosome
dipole is no longer strong enough to hold them in place. In both cases,
the theoretical results are only qualitatively similar to the experimental
ones (the angles differ up to ca. 10°). For intermediate field
strength (35 mT), a discrepancy of more than 70° is observed
for Ω = 90°. Moreover, the change in the pattern of rotation
that we observe experimentally appears to be abrupt rather than gradual
as predicted by the model. While the magnetosomes follow almost exactly
the rotation of the external field for a field strength of 35 mT,
no rotation at all is seen for a field strength of 20 mT (Figure 3B) and even for 30 mT (see below).To analyze
the source of this discrepancy (Figure S4, Supporting
Information), we used the internal
magnetic field Bint as a fitting parameter.
Quantitative agreement (with difference <5°) for Bext = 150 mT is obtained if Bint is smaller than∼4 mT. Such a small value of Bint is obtained when the separation between neighboring magnetosomes
is comparable to their diameter, a distance considerably larger than
that observed in electron micrographs (Figure 1B). An opposing requirement is obtained for a good fit to the data
for Bext = 20 mT, namely, Bint > 40 mT. This value is not only considerably larger
than the estimated value based on the EM images, but even exceeds B0 ≈ 30 mT, which is the highest possible
value within our model. These observations suggest two conclusions:
(i) The torque opposing the rotation of the magnetosomes at weak external
fields is probably not only of magnetic origin. Taking our original
estimate of Bint ≈ 15 mT suggests
a nonmagnetic contribution corresponding to an additional 25 mT, i.e.,
comparable to or even larger than the torque resulting from magnetic
interactions. (ii) The opposing requirements for weak and strong fields
suggest that there are structural differences in the arrangement or
the molecular interactions of the magnetosome when the system is probed
with different field strengths. A potential explanation is that the
chain structure is disrupted by the field, e.g., breaking at least
part of the molecular complexes responsible for this assembly. The
abrupt change in the rotation behavior at about 30–35 mT suggests
that the disruption happens at a critical field strength in this range.
Strong
Fields Break the Magnetosome Chains
We performed
a set of two consecutive experiments with different field strengths
to test if strong fields disrupt magnetosome chains. After the cells
are exposed to rotating fields with strengths either larger or smaller
than 30 mT, a weak magnetic field (10 mT) is rotated around the sample
(Figure 4). When an initial field weaker or
equal to 30 mT is used, the orientation of the magnetosomes in their
natural alignment remains unchanged during the whole process, and
no rotation is observed when subsequently using a field strength of
10 mT (Figure 4A). By contrast, when we initially
use 35 mT, a field strength at which we showed a compliance of the
magnetic particle orientation with respect to field direction, we
also observe a rotation when subsequently using 10 mT (Figure 4D). As shown before, 10 mT is initially not sufficient
to change the magnetosome orientation.
Figure 4
Measured angle of orientation
of the magnetosomes as a function
of the angle of the external field at 10 mT. When the initial experiment
was performed at 30 mT (A), the magnetosome orientation is unchanged
during the process. In this case, the TEM image shows that the chain
has remained intact (B). Scheme of the observed situation in the wild-type
cells: the magnetosomes are attached to the MamK filaments by the
MamJ proteins (in blue) (C). When the initial field of 35 mT was used
(D), the magnetosomes reorient and follow the external field. After
cross-linking of the biological macromolecules, broken chains are
observed (E). In this case, the interaction between MamJ and MamK
is putatively disturbed as depicted in the scheme (F). For the ΔmamJ mutant, the magnetosomes reorient and follow the external
field even directly at 10 mT (G). In addition, multiple, possibly
short, chains not oriented along the long axis of the bacteria are
observed (H) similar to what is imaged when chains of WT cells are
broken (E) . The scheme (I) depicts the absence of MamJ and thereby
the fact that the magnetosomes displacement is no longer restricted
by the mamJ/MamK interaction, even at low field.
Measured angle of orientation
of the magnetosomes as a function
of the angle of the external field at 10 mT. When the initial experiment
was performed at 30 mT (A), the magnetosome orientation is unchanged
during the process. In this case, the TEM image shows that the chain
has remained intact (B). Scheme of the observed situation in the wild-type
cells: the magnetosomes are attached to the MamK filaments by the
MamJ proteins (in blue) (C). When the initial field of 35 mT was used
(D), the magnetosomes reorient and follow the external field. After
cross-linking of the biological macromolecules, broken chains are
observed (E). In this case, the interaction between MamJ and MamK
is putatively disturbed as depicted in the scheme (F). For the ΔmamJ mutant, the magnetosomes reorient and follow the external
field even directly at 10 mT (G). In addition, multiple, possibly
short, chains not oriented along the long axis of the bacteria are
observed (H) similar to what is imaged when chains of WT cells are
broken (E) . The scheme (I) depicts the absence of MamJ and thereby
the fact that the magnetosomes displacement is no longer restricted
by the mamJ/MamK interaction, even at low field.This confirms the hypothesis of a structural change, which
is irreversible
on the time scale of the experiment. We interpret this observation
such that the magnetosome chains are destroyed after treatment with
field strength above 30 mT. Indeed, if the magnetic coupling between
the magnetosomes in the chain is absent, field strengths smaller than
the initially observed 30 mT might suffice to rotate individual magnetosomes
not stabilized by neighboring particles.The bacteria are then
imaged by EM after cross-linking of their
internal structure by the addition of paraformaldehyde inside the
gel, before (Figure 4B) and after (Figure 4E) treatment with a field strength of 35 mT applied
at 90°. In the absence of treatment, the bacteria exhibit the
usual chain alignment (Figure 4B). After treatment,
however, the long magnetosome chains are absent (Figure 4E). Instead, small, fragmented chains of about 3 to 6 magnetosomes
are observed, which are dispersed in the cells and oriented perpendicular
to the long axis of the cell and thus parallel to the externally applied
field. The electron micrographs clearly show that at least part of
the molecular complexes responsible for the assembly are disrupted.
However, if the bacteria are not cross-linked after such treatment,
WT-like pattern are observed rather than fragmented chains, suggesting
that the macromolecular scaffold is dynamic enough to rapidly reform.
Fluorescence images of mCherry-MamK did not show any broken filamentous
structure (Figure 1G,H). Thus, we conclude
that the weakest link of the substructure is not MamK.
ΔmamJ Mutant Crystals Are Oriented by
a Field of Low Strength
Next, we used a ΔmamJ mutant of MSR-1, which lacks the ability to assemble the magnetosomes
in chains and form clusters instead.[33,34] XRD experiments
with this mutant result in the orientation of the crystals in the
direction of the applied field even at low field strength (Figure 4G). Therefore, the X-ray patterns of the mutants
are similar to those obtained with wild-type cells either at high
magnetic field strength or at low field after the application of a
high field. In addition, EM images confirm that the mutants exhibit
features similar to those of cells with broken chains after treatment
at high field (Figure 4H). This suggests that
disruption of MamJ or at least of the interaction between MamJ and
MamK is responsible for the pattern observed in our experiment with
wild-type cells (Figure 4F,I).
Mechanical Implications
Our observation of a threshold
field strength around 30 mT can be used to obtain an estimation of
the mechanical properties of the underlying biological determinant
MamJ. Indeed, the torque applied by a magnetic field on a magnetic
dipole is given byThe magnetic moment of a magnetosome particle
with a radius of 20 nm is m = 1.6 × 10–17 Am2. Assuming a chain of 20 particles, the magnetic moment
of the chain sums up to 3.2 × 10–16 Am2. A field of 30 mT results in a torque on the chain of τchain = 1 × 10–17 Nm. At this field
strength, the rotation of the crystals is altered, and no change in
the localization of the filament is detected. This suggests that the
filamentous backbone inside living magnetotactic bacteria is strong
enough to resist such a torque.The strong change from restricted
rotation of the magnetosomes to complete alignment occurs between
30 and 35 mT. The torque generated on the magnetosomes by fields of
35 mT is sufficient to break MamJ or at least its interaction with
MamK. The torque generated by a field of 30 mT on a single magnetosome
is about τ = 4.9 × 10–19 Nm. With τ = × , the torque can be converted into a force applied
on the surface of the particle. In this case, a force of = 24.5 pN is obtained. This value is comparable,
but slightly lower than the reported rupture forces (of 40–80
pN) for the interaction of the actin-binding proteins filamin and
α-actinin to actin that were obtained in vitro.[7]In summary, we have studied the mechanical properties
of the macromolecular
complex involved in the magnetosome chain stabilization in magnetotactic
bacteria in vivo. The inherent hierarchical structuring of the microorganisms
enables the synthetic-reporter-free analysis of the system. Indeed,
the magnetosomes take over the role of natural internal reporters.
Elucidating the mechanical properties of such assemblies will pave
the way toward the understanding of mechanical signaling and in this
case even possibly of magnetoreception in higher organisms.In addition, 1D magnetic devices have potential application in
actuators, sensors, and electronics.[35,36] Specifically,
magnetosomes and magnetosome chains represent a paradigm of biological
1D magnetic nanostructures and have therefore numerous bio- and nanotechnological
applications.[37,38] Understanding the interaction
between the magnetite crystals and their support is thus of primary
importance since it allows the understanding of the physical forces
and interactions exerted between crystals and biological components.
This knowledge in turn is necessary for the design of hierarchical
and multifunctional materials.
Authors: Mathieu Bennet; Luca Bertinetti; Robert K Neely; Andreas Schertel; André Körnig; Cristina Flors; Frank D Müller; Dirk Schüler; Stefan Klumpp; Damien Faivre Journal: Faraday Discuss Date: 2015 Impact factor: 4.008
Authors: Philipp Bender; Lourdes Marcano; Iñaki Orue; Diego Alba Venero; Dirk Honecker; Luis Fernández Barquín; Alicia Muela; M Luisa Fdez-Gubieda Journal: Nanoscale Adv Date: 2020-02-27