Skip to main content
. 2018 May 11;13(5):e0196999. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196999

Fig 8. Chemotaxis versus pseudotaxis bacterial response.

Fig 8

a. Transwell scheme and simulated transwell gradient. Bacteria were suspended in DPBS in the bottom of the transwell apparatus. DPBS, DPBS + 100 μM glucose or DPBS + 100 μM hydrogen peroxide solutions were loaded into the top of the transwell apparatus for testing. DPBS in both top and bottom served as random motility controls. Chemotaxis (towards glucose), or pseudotaxis (towards hydrogen peroxide), respectively, were also determined. b-c. Quantification of bacterial motility. For chemotaxis, the bacteria cell number was assayed in the upper chamber after 2 hours; for pseudotaxis, the bacteria cell number was assayed in the upper chamber after 45 minutes. Tukey-Kramer ANOVA and multiple comparisons analyses were performed with * α = 0.001 and ** α = 0.005. Blue * indicates the samples differed significantly from HCW01-pFZY1 + DPBS. ** HCW01-pHW02 + DPBS.