Skip to main content
eLife logoLink to eLife
. 2019 Jul 16;8:e44907. doi: 10.7554/eLife.44907

Swimming eukaryotic microorganisms exhibit a universal speed distribution

Maciej Lisicki 1,2,†,, Marcos F Velho Rodrigues 1,, Raymond E Goldstein 1, Eric Lauga 1,
Editors: Arup K Chakraborty3, Arup K Chakraborty4
PMCID: PMC6634970  PMID: 31310238

Abstract

One approach to quantifying biological diversity consists of characterizing the statistical distribution of specific properties of a taxonomic group or habitat. Microorganisms living in fluid environments, and for whom motility is key, exploit propulsion resulting from a rich variety of shapes, forms, and swimming strategies. Here, we explore the variability of swimming speed for unicellular eukaryotes based on published data. The data naturally partitions into that from flagellates (with a small number of flagella) and from ciliates (with tens or more). Despite the morphological and size differences between these groups, each of the two probability distributions of swimming speed are accurately represented by log-normal distributions, with good agreement holding even to fourth moments. Scaling of the distributions by a characteristic speed for each data set leads to a collapse onto an apparently universal distribution. These results suggest a universal way for ecological niches to be populated by abundant microorganisms.

Research organism: Other

Introduction

Unicellular eukaryotes comprise a vast, diverse group of organisms that covers virtually all environments and habitats, displaying a menagerie of shapes and forms. Hundreds of species of the ciliate genus Paramecium (Wichterman, 1986) or flagellated Euglena (Buetow, 2011) are found in marine, brackish, and freshwater reservoirs; the green algae Chlamydomonas is distributed in soil and fresh water world-wide (Harris et al., 2009); parasites from the genus Giardia colonize intestines of several vertebrates (Adam, 2001). One of the shared features of these organisms is their motility, crucial for nutrient acquisition and avoidance of danger (Bray, 2001). In the process of evolution, single-celled organisms have developed in a variety of directions, and thus their rich morphology results in a large spectrum of swimming modes (Cappuccinelli, 1980).

Many swimming eukaryotes actuate tail-like appendages called flagella or cilia in order to generate the required thrust (Sleigh, 1975). This is achieved by actively generating deformations along the flagellum, giving rise to a complex waveform. The flagellar axoneme itself is a bundle of nine pairs of microtubule doublets surrounding two central microtubules, termed the '9 + 2' structure (Nicastro et al., 2005), and cross-linking dynein motors, powered by ATP hydrolysis, perform mechanical work by promoting the relative sliding of filaments, resulting in bending deformations.

Although eukaryotic flagella exhibit a diversity of forms and functions (Moran et al., 2014), two large families, ‘flagellates’ and ‘ciliates’, can be distinguished by the shape and beating pattern of their flagella. Flagellates typically have a small number of long flagella distributed along the bodies, and they actuate them to generate thrust. The set of observed movement sequences includes planar undulatory waves and traveling helical waves, either from the base to the tip, or in the opposite direction (Jahn and Votta, 1972; Brennen and Winet, 1977). Flagella attached to the same body might follow different beating patterns, leading to a complex locomotion strategy that often relies also on the resistance the cell body poses to the fluid. In contrast, propulsion of ciliates derives from the motion of a layer of densely-packed and collectively-moving cilia, which are short hair-like flagella covering their bodies. The seminal review paper of Brennen and Winet (1977) lists a few examples from both groups, highlighting their shape, beat form, geometric characteristics and swimming properties. Cilia may also be used for transport of the surrounding fluid, and their cooperativity can lead to directed flow generation. In higher organisms this can be crucial for internal transport processes, as in cytoplasmic streaming within plant cells (Allen and Allen, 1978), or the transport of ova from the ovary to the uterus in female mammals (Lyons et al., 2006).

Here, we turn our attention to these two morphologically different groups of swimmers to explore the variability of their propulsion dynamics within broad taxonomic groups. To this end, we have collected swimming speed data from literature for flagellated eukaryotes and ciliates and analyze them separately (we do not include spermatozoa since they lack (ironically) the capability to reproduce and are thus not living organisms; their swimming characteristics have been studied by Tam and Hosoi, 2011). A careful examination of the statistical properties of the speed distributions for flagellates and ciliates shows that they are not only both captured by log-normal distributions but that, upon rescaling the data by a characteristic swimming speed for each data set, the speed distributions in both types of organisms are essentially identical.

Results and discussion

We have collected swimming data on 189 unicellular eukaryotic microorganisms (Nfl=112 flagellates and Ncil=77 ciliates) (see Appendix 1 and Source data 1). Figure 1 shows a tree encompassing the phyla of organisms studied and sketches of a representative organism from each phylum. A large morphological variation is clearly visible. In addition, we delineate the branches involving aquatic organisms and parasitic species living within hosts. Both groups include ciliates and flagellates.

Figure 1. The tree of life (cladogram) for unicellular eukaryotes encompassing the phyla of organisms analyzed in the present study.

Figure 1.

Aquatic organisms (living in marine, brackish, or freshwater environments) have their branches drawn in blue while parasitic organisms have their branches drawn in red. Ciliates are indicated by an asterisk after their names. For each phylum marked in bold font, a representative organism has been sketched next to its name. Phylogenetic data from Hinchliff et al. (2015).

Due to the morphological and size differences between ciliates and flagellates, we investigate separately the statistical properties of each. Figure 2 shows the two swimming speed histograms superimposed, based on the raw distributions shown in Figure 2—figure supplement 1, where bin widths have been adjusted to their respective samples using the Freedman-Diaconis rule (see Materials and methods). Ciliates span a much larger range of speeds, up to 7 mm/s, whereas generally smaller flagellates remain in the sub-mm/s range. The inset shows that the number of flagella in both groups leads to a clear division. To compare the two groups further, we have also collected information on the characteristic sizes of swimmers from the available literature, which we list in Appendix 1. The average cell size differs fourfold between the populations (31 µm for flagellates and 132 µm for ciliates) and the distributions, plotted in Figure 2—figure supplement 2, are biased towards the low-size end but they are quantitatively different. In order to explore the physical conditions, we used the data on sizes and speeds to compute the Reynolds number Re=UL/ν for each organism, where ν=η/ρ is the kinematic viscosity of water, with η the viscosity and ρ the density. Since almost no data was available for the viscosity of the fluid in swimming speed measurements, we assumed the standard value ν=106m2/s for water for all organisms. The distribution of Reynolds numbers (Figure 2—figure supplement 3), shows that ciliates and flagellates operate in different ranges of Re, although for both groups Re<1, imposing on them the same limitations of inertia-less Stokes flow (Purcell, 1977; Lauga and Powers, 2009).

Figure 2. Histograms of swimming speed for ciliates and flagellates demonstrate a similar character but different scales of velocities.

Data points represent the mean and standard deviation of the data in each bin; horizontal error bars represent variability within each bin, vertical error bars show the standard deviation of the count. Inset: number of flagella displayed, where available, for each organism exhibits a clear morphological division between ciliates and flagellates.

Figure 2.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1. Linear distribution of swimming speed data.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

Symbols have been randomly placed vertically to avoid overlap.

Figure 2—figure supplement 2. Distribution of organism sizes in analyzed groups.

Figure 2—figure supplement 2.

Each histogram has been rescaled by the average cell size for each group. Although both distributions exhibit a qualitatively similar shape biased toward the low limit, no quantitative similarity is found.

Figure 2—figure supplement 3. Distribution of Reynolds numbers for organisms in analyzed groups.

Figure 2—figure supplement 3.

Source data for the characteristic size L and swimming speeds U are listed in Appendix 1.

Furthermore, studies of green algae (Short et al., 2006; Goldstein, 2015) show that an important distinction between the smaller, flagellated species and the largest multicellular ones involves the relative importance of advection and diffusion, as captured by the Péclet number Pe=UL/D, where L is a typical organism size and D is the diffusion constant of a relevant molecular species. Using the average size L of the cell body in each group of the present study (Lfl=31 μm, Lcil=132μm) and the median swimming speeds (Ufl=127m/s, Ucil=784m/s), and taking D=103(μm)2/s, we find Pefl3.9 and Pecil103, which further justifies analyzing the groups separately; they live in different physical regimes.

Examination of the mean, variance, kurtosis, and higher moments of the data sets suggest that the probabilities P(U) of the swimming speed are well-described by log-normal distributions,

P(U)=1Uσ2πexp(-(lnU-μ)22σ2), (1)

normalized as 0𝑑UP(U)=1, where μ and σ are the mean and the standard deviation of lnU. The median M of the distribution is eμ, with units of speed. Log-normal distributions are widely observed across nature in areas such as ecology, physiology, geology and climate science, serving as an empirical model for complex processes shaping a system with many potentially interacting elements (Limpert et al., 2001), particularly when the underlying processes involve proportionate fluctuations or multiplicative noise (Koch, 1966).

The results of fitting (see Materials and methods) are plotted in Figure 3, where the best fits are presented as solid curves, with the shaded areas representing 95% confidence intervals. For flagellates, we find the Mfl=127m/s and σfl=0.978 while for ciliates, we obtain Mcil=784m/s and σcil=0.936. Log-normal distributions are known to emerge from an (imperfect) analogy to the Gaussian central limit theorem (see Materials and methods). Since the data are accurately described by this distribution, we conclude that the published literature includes a sufficiently large amount of unbiased data to be able to see the whole distribution.

Figure 3. Probability distribution functions of swimming speeds for flagellates (a) and ciliates (b) with the fitted log-normal distributions.

Data points represent uncertainties as in Figure 2. Despite the markedly different scales of the distributions, they have similar shapes.

Figure 3.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1. Higher moments of the swimming speed distributions obtained from the data compared with those calculated from the fitted log-normal distribution.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

The algebraic moments n are defined in Equation (4). Error bars representing 95% confidence intervals for fitted parameters, are obscured by markers.

We next compare the statistical variability within groups by examining rescaled distributions (Goldstein, 2018). As each has a characteristic speed M, we align the peaks by plotting the distributions versus the variable U/M for each group. Since P has units of 1/speed, we are thus led to the form P(U,M)=M-1F(U/M) for some function F. For the log-normal distribution, with M the median, we find

F(ξ)=1ξσ2πexp(ln2ξ2σ2), (2)

which now depends on the single parameter σ and has a median of unity by construction. To study the similarity of the two distributions we plot the functions F=MP(U/M) for each. As seen in Figure 4, the rescaled distributions are essentially indistinguishable, and this can be traced back to the near identical values of the variances σ, which are within 5% of each other. The fitting uncertainties shown shaded in Figure 4 suggest a very similar range of variability of the fitted distributions. Furthermore, both the integrated absolute difference between the distributions (0.028) and the Kullback-Leibler divergence (0.0016) are very small (see Materials and methods), demonstrating the close similarity of the two distributions. This similarity is robust to the choice of characteristic speed, as shown in Figure 4—figure supplement 1, where the arithmetic mean U* is used in place of the median.

Figure 4. Test of rescaling hypothesis.

Shown are the two fitted log-normal curves for flagellates and ciliates, each multiplied by the distribution median M, plotted versus speed normalized by M. The distributions for show remarkable similarity and uncertainty of estimation.

Figure 4.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1. Data collapse as in the main figure, but using the mean speeds U* instead of the median M.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1.

A similar quality of data collapse is seen.

In living cells, the sources for intrinsic variability within organisms are well characterized on the molecular and cellular level (Kirkwood et al., 2005) but less is known about variability within taxonomic groups. By dividing unicellular eukaryotes into two major groups on the basis of their difference in morphology, size and swimming strategy, we were able to capture in this paper the log-normal variability within each subset. Using a statistical analysis of the distributions as functions of the median swimming speed for each population we further found an almost identical distribution of swimming speeds for both types of organisms. Our results suggest that the observed log-normal randomness captures a universal way for ecological niches to be populated by abundant microorganisms with similar propulsion characteristics. We note, however, that the distributions of swimming speeds among species do not necessarily reflect the distributions of swimming speeds among individuals, for which we have no available data.

Materials and methods

Data collection

Data for ciliates were sourced from 26 research articles, while that for flagellates were extracted from 48 papers (see Appendix 1). Notably, swimming speeds reported in the various studies have been measured under different physiological and environmental conditions, including temperature, viscosity, salinity, oxygenation, pH and light. Therefore we consider the data not as representative of a uniform environment, but instead as arising from a random sampling of a wide range of environmental conditions. In cases where no explicit figure was given for U in a paper, estimates were made using other available data where possible. Size of swimmers has also been included as a characteristic length for each organism. This, however, does not reflect the spread and diversity of sizes within populations of individual but is rather an indication of a typical size, as in the considered studies these data were not available. Information on anisotropy (different width/length) is also not included.

No explicit criteria were imposed for the inclusion in the analyses, apart from the biological classification (i.e. whether the organisms were unicellular eukaryotic ciliates/flagellates). We have used all the data found in literature for these organisms over the course of an extensive search. Since no selection was made, we believe that the observed statistical properties are representative for these groups.

Data processing and fitting the log-normal distribution

Bin widths in histograms in Figure 2 and Figure 3 have been chosen separately for ciliates and flagellated eukaryotes according to the Freedman-Diaconis rule (Freedman and Diaconis, 1981) taking into account the respective sample sizes and the spread of distributions. The bin width b is then given by the number of observations N and the interquartile range of the data IQR as

b=2IQRN1/3. (3)

Within each bin in Figure 3, we calculate the mean and the standard deviation for the binned data, which constitute the horizontal error bars. The vertical error bars reflect the uncertainty in the number of counts Nj in bin j. This is estimated to be Poissonian, and thus the absolute error amounts to Nj. Notably, the relative error decays with the number of counts as 1/Nj.

In fitting the data, we employ the log-normal distribution Equation (1). In general, from from data comprising N measurements, labelled xi (i=1,,N), the n-th arithmetic moment n is the expectation 𝔼(Xn), or

n=1Ni=1Nxin (4)

Medians of the data were found by sorting the list of values and picking the middlemost value. For a log-normal distribution, the arithmetic moments are given solely by μ and σ of the associated normal distribution as

n=MnΣn2, (5)

where we have defined M=exp(μ) and Σ=exp(σ2/2), and note that M is the median of the distribution. Thus, the mean is MΣ and the variance is M2Σ2(Σ2-1). From the first and second moments, we estimate

μ=ln(122)andσ2=ln(212). (6)

Having estimated μ and σ, we can compute the higher order moments from Equation (5) and compare to those calculated directly from the data, as shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

To fit the data, we have used both the MATLAB fitting routines and the Python scipy.stats module. From these fits we estimated the shape and scale parameters and the 95% confidence intervals in Figure 3 and Figure 4. We emphasize that the fitting procedures use the raw data via the maximum likelihood estimation method, and not the processed histograms, hence the estimated parameters are insensitive to the binning procedure.

For rescaled distributions, the average velocity for each group of organisms was calculated as U=1Nii=1NiUi, with i{cil,fl}. Then, data in each subset have been rescaled by the area under the fitted curve to ensure that the resulting probability density functions pi are normalized as

0pi(x)dx=1. (7)

In characterizations of biological or ecological diversity, it is often assumed that the examined variables are Gaussian, and thus the distribution of many uncorrelated variables attains the normal distribution by virtue of the Central Limit Theorem (CLT). In the case when random variables in question are positive and have a log-normal distribution, no analogous explicit analytic result is available. Despite that, there is general agreement that a sum of independent log-normal random variables can be well approximated by another log-normal random variable. It has been proven by Szyszkowicz and Yanikome (2009) that the sum of identically distributed equally and positively correlated joint log-normal distributions converges to a log-normal distribution of known characteristics but for uncorrelated variables only estimations are available (Beaulieu et al., 1995). We use these results to conclude that our distributions contain enough data to be unbiased and seen in full.

Comparisons of distributions

In order to quantify the differences between the fitted distributions, we define the integrated absolute difference Δ between two probability distributions p(x) and q(x) (x>0) as

Δ=0|p(x)-q(x)|dx. (8)

As the probability distributions are normalized, this is a measure of their relative ’distance’. As a second measure, we use the Kullback-Leibler divergence (Kullback and Leibler, 1951),

D(p,q)=0p(x)ln(p(x)q(x))dx. (9)

Note that D(p,q)D(q,p) and therefore D is not a distance metric in the space of probability distributions.

Acknowledgements

This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement 682754 to EL), and from Established Career Fellowship EP/M017982/1 from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and Grant 7523 from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (REG).

Appendix 1

The Appendix contains the data which form the basis of our study. The tables contain data on the sizes and swimming speed of ciliates organisms and flagellated eukaryotes from the existing literature. Data for ciliates were sourced from 26 research articles, while data for the flagellates were extracted from 48 papers. In the cases where two or more sources reported contrasting figures for the swimming speed, the average value is reported in our tables. The data itself is available in Source data 1.

Data for swimming flagellates

Abbreviations: dflg. – dinoflagellata; dph – dinophyceae; chlph. – chlorophyta; ochph. (het.) –ochrophyta (heterokont); srcm. – sarcomastigophora, pyr. – pyramimonadophyceae; prym. – prymnesiophyceae; dict. – dictyochophyceae; crypt. – cryptophyceae; chrys. – chrysophyceae

Species Phylum Class L[μm] U[μm/s] References
Alexandrium minutum dflg. dph. 21.7 222.5 (Lewis et al., 2006)
Alexandrium ostenfeldii dflg. dph. 41.1 110.5 (Lewis et al., 2006)
Alexandrium tamarense dflg. dph. 26.7 200 (Lewis et al., 2006)
Amphidinium britannicum dflg. dph. 51.2 68.7 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986)
Amphidinium carterae dflg. dph. 16 81.55 (Gittleson et al., 1974; Bauerfeind et al., 1986)
Amphidinium klebsi dflg. dph. 35 73.9 (Gittleson et al., 1974)
Apedinella spinifera ochph. (het.) dict. 8.25 132.5 (Throndsen, 1973)
Bodo designis euglenozoa kinetoplastea 5.5 39 (Visser and Kiørboe, 2006)
Brachiomonas submarina chlph. chlorophyceae 27.5 96 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986)
Cachonina (Heterocapsa) niei dflg. dph. 21.4 302.8 (Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987; Kamykowski and Zentara, 1977)
Cafeteria roenbergensis bygira (heterokont) bicosoecida 2 94.9 (Fenchel and Blackburn, 1999)
Ceratium cornutum dflg. dph. 122.3 177.75 (Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987; Metzner, 1929)
Ceratium furca dflg. dph. 122.5 194 (Peters, 1929)
Ceratium fusus dflg. dph. 307.5 156.25 (Peters, 1929)
Ceratium hirundinella dflg. dph. 397.5 236.1 (Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987)
Ceratium horridum dflg. dph. 225 20.8 (Peters, 1929)
Ceratium lineatus dflg. dph. 82.1 36 (Fenchel, 2001)
Ceratium longipes dflg. dph. 210 166 (Peters, 1929)
Ceratium macroceros dflg. dph. 50 15.4 (Peters, 1929)
Ceratium tripos dflg. dph. 152.3 121.7 (Peters, 1929; Bauerfeind et al., 1986)
Chilomonas paramecium cryptophyta crypt. 30 111.25 (Lee, 1954; Jahn and Bovee, 1967; Gittleson et al., 1974)
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii chlph. chlorophyceae 10 130 (Gittleson et al., 1974; Roberts, 1981; Guasto et al., 2010)
Chlamydomonas moewusii chlph. chlorophyceae 12.5 128 (Gittleson et al., 1974)
Chlamydomonas sp. chlph. chlorophyceae 13 63.2 (Lowndes, 1944; Lowndes, 1941; Bauerfeind et al., 1986)
Crithidia deanei euglenozoa kinetoplastea 7.4 45.6 (Gadelha et al., 2007)
Crithidia fasciculata euglenozoa kinetoplastea 11.1 54.3 (Gadelha et al., 2007)
Crithidia (Strigomonas) oncopelti euglenozoa kinetoplastea 8 .1 18.5 (Roberts, 1981; Gittleson et al., 1974)
Crypthecodinium cohnii dflg. dph. n/a 122.8 (Fenchel, 2001)
Dinophysis acuta dflg. dph. 65 500 (Peters, 1929)
Dinophysis ovum dflg. dph. 45 160 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Dunaliella sp. chlph. chlorophyceae 10.8 173.5 (Gittleson et al., 1974; Bauerfeind et al., 1986)
Euglena gracilis euglenozoa euglenida (eugl.) 47.5 111.25 (Lee, 1954; Jahn and Bovee, 1967; Gittleson et al., 1974)
Euglena viridis euglenozoa euglenida (eugl.) 58 80 (Holwill, 1975; Roberts, 1981; Lowndes, 1941)
Eutreptiella gymnastica euglenozoa euglenida (aphagea) 23.5 237.5 (Throndsen, 1973)
Eutreptiella sp. R euglenozoa euglenida 50 135 (Throndsen, 1973)
Exuviaella baltica (Prorocentrum balticum) dflg. dph. 15.5 138.9 (Wheeler, 1966)
Giardia lamblia srcm. zoomastigophora 11.25 26 (Lenaghan et al., 2011; Campanati et al., 2002; Chen et al., 2012)
Gonyaulax polyedra dflg. dph. 39.2 254.05 (Hand et al., 1965; Gittleson et al., 1974; Kamykowski et al., 1992)
Gonyaulax polygramma dflg. dph. 46.2 500 (Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987)
Gymnodinium aureolum dflg. dph. n/a 394 (Meunier et al., 2013)
Gymnodinium sanguineum (splendens) dflg. dph. 47.6 220.5 (Kamykowski et al., 1992; Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987)
Gymnodinium simplex dflg. dph. 10.6 559 (Jakobsen et al., 2006)
Gyrodinium aureolum dflg. dph. 30.5 139 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986; Throndsen, 1973)
Gyrodinium dorsum (bi-flagellated) dflg. dph. 37.5 324 (Hand et al., 1965; Gittleson et al., 1974; Kamykowski et al., 1992; Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987Brennen and Winet, 1977)
Gyrodinium dorsum (uni-flagellated) dflg. dph. 34.5 148.35 (Hand and Schmidt, 1975)
Hemidinium nasutum dflg. dph. 27.2 105.6 (Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987; Metzner, 1929)
Hemiselmis simplex cryptophyta crypt. 5.25 325 (Throndsen, 1973)
Heterocapsa pygmea dflg. dph. 13.5 102.35 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986)
Heterocapsa rotundata dflg. dph. 12.5 323 (Jakobsen et al., 2006)
Heterocapsa triquetra dflg. dph. 17 97 (Visser and Kiørboe, 2006)
Heteromastix pyriformis chlph. nephrophyseae 6 87.5 (Throndsen, 1973)
Hymenomonas carterae haptophyta prym. 12.5 87 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986)
Katodinium rotundatum (Heterocapsa rotundata) dflg. dph. 10.8 425 (Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987; Throndsen, 1973)
Leishmania major euglenozoa kinetoplastea 12.5 36.4 (Gadelha et al., 2007)
Menoidium cultellus euglenozoa euglenida (eugl.) 45 136.75 (Holwill, 1975; Votta et al., 1971)
Menoidium incurvum euglenozoa euglenida (eugl.) 25 50 (Lowndes, 1941; Gittleson et al., 1974)
Micromonas pusilla chlph. mamiellophyceae 2 58.5 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986; Throndsen, 1973)
Monas stigmata ochph. (het.) chrys. 6 269 (Gittleson et al., 1974)
Monostroma angicava chlph. ulvophyceae 6.7 170.55 (Togashi et al., 1997)
Nephroselmis pyriformis chlph. nephrophyseae 4.8 163.5 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986)
Oblea rotunda dflg. dph. 20 420 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Ochromonas danica ochph. (het.) chrys. 8.7 77 (Holwill and Peters, 1974)
Ochromonas malhamensis ochph. (het.) chrys. 3 57.5 (Holwill, 1974)
Ochromonas minima ochph. (het.) chrys. 5 75 (Throndsen, 1973)
Olisthodiscus luteus ochph. (het.) raphidophyceae 22.5 90 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986; Throndsen, 1973)
Oxyrrhis marina dflg. oxyrrhea 39.5 300 (Boakes et al., 2011; Fenchel, 2001)
Paragymnodinium shiwhaense dflg. dph. 10.9 571 (Meunier et al., 2013)
Paraphysomonas vestita ochph. (het.) chrys. 14.7 116.85 (Christensen-Dalsgaard and Fenchel, 2004)
Pavlova lutheri haptophyta pavlovophyceae 6.5 126 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986)
Peranema trichophorum euglenozoa euglenida (heteronematales) 45 20 (Lowndes, 1941; Gittleson et al., 1974; Brennen and Winet, 1977)
Peridinium bipes dflg. dph. 42.9 291 (Fenchel, 2001)
Peridinium cf. quinquecorne dflg. dph. 19 1500 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986; Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987; Horstmann, 1980)
Peridinium cinctum dflg. dph. 47.5 120 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986; Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987; Metzner, 1929)
Peridinium (Protoperidinium) claudicans dflg. dph. 77.5 229 (Peters, 1929)
Peridinium (Protoperidinium) crassipes dflg. dph. 102 100 (Peters, 1929)
Peridinium foliaceum dflg. dph. 30.6 185.2 (Kamykowski et al., 1992)
Peridinium (Bysmatrum) gregarium dflg. dph. 32.5 1291.7 (Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987)
Peridinium (Protoperidinium) ovatum dflg. dph. 61 187.5 (Peters, 1929)
Peridinium (Peridiniopsis) penardii dflg. dph. 28.8 417 (Sibley et al., 1974)
Peridinium (Protoperidinium) pentagonum dflg. dph. 92.5 266.5 (Peters, 1929)
Peridinium (Protoperidinium) subinerme dflg. dph. 50 285 (Peters, 1929)
Peridinium trochoideum dflg. dph. 25 53 (Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987)
Peridinium umbonatum dflg. dph. 30 250 (Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987; Metzner, 1929)
Phaeocystis pouchetii haptophyta prym. 6.3 88 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986)
Polytoma uvella chlph. chlorophyceae 22.5 100.9 (Lowndes, 1944; Gittleson et al., 1974; Lowndes, 1941)
Polytomella agilis chlph. chlorophyceae 12.4 150 (Gittleson and Jahn, 1968; Gittleson and Noble, 1973; Gittleson et al., 1974; Roberts, 1981)
Prorocentrum mariae-lebouriae dflg. dph. 14.8 141.05 (Kamykowski et al., 1992; Bauerfeind et al., 1986; Miyasaka et al., 1998)
Prorocentrum micans dflg. dph. 45 329.1 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986; Levandowsky and Kaneta, 1987)
Prorocentrum minimum dflg. dph. 15.1 107.7 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986; Miyasaka et al., 1998)
Prorocentrum redfieldii Bursa (P.triestinum) dflg. dph. 33.2 333.3 (Sournia, 1982)
Protoperidinium depressum dflg. dph. 132 450 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Protoperidinium granii (Ostf.) Balech dflg. dph. 57.5 86.1 (Sournia, 1982)
Protoperidinium pacificum dflg. dph. 54 410 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Prymnesium polylepis haptophyta prym. 9.1 45 (Dölger et al., 2017)
Prymnesium parvum haptophyta prym. 7.2 30 (Dölger et al., 2017)
Pseudopedinella pyriformis ochph. (het.) dict. 6.5 100 (Throndsen, 1973)
Pseudoscourfieldia marina chlph. pyr. 4.1 42 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986)
Pteridomonas danica ochph. (het.) dict. 5.5 179.45 (Christensen-Dalsgaard and Fenchel, 2004)
Pyramimonas amylifera chlph. pyr. 24.5 22.5 (Bauerfeind et al., 1986)
Pyramimonas cf. disomata chlph. pyr. 9 355 (Throndsen, 1973)
Rhabdomonas spiralis euglenozoa euglenida (aphagea) 27 120 (Holwill, 1975)
Rhodomonas salina cryptophyta crypt. 14.5 588.5 (Jakobsen et al., 2006; Meunier et al., 2013)
Scrippsiella trochoidea dflg. dph. 25.3 87.6 (Kamykowski et al., 1992; Bauerfeind et al., 1986; Sournia, 1982)
Spumella sp. ochph. (het.) chrys. 10 25 (Visser and Kiørboe, 2006)
Teleaulax sp. cryptophyta crypt. 13.5 98 (Meunier et al., 2013)
Trypanosoma brucei euglenozoa kinetoplastea 18.8 20.5 (Rodríguez et al., 2009)
Trypanosoma cruzi euglenozoa kinetoplastea 20 172 (Jahn and Fonseca, 1963; Brennen and Winet, 1977)
Trypanosoma vivax euglenozoa kinetoplastea 23.5 29.5 (Bargul et al., 2016)
Trypanosoma evansi euglenozoa kinetoplastea 21.5 16.1 (Bargul et al., 2016)
Trypanosoma congolense euglenozoa kinetoplastea 18 9.7 (Bargul et al., 2016)
Tetraflagellochloris mauritanica chlph. chlorophyceae 4 300 (Barsanti et al., 2016)

Appendix 2

Data for swimming ciliates

Abbreviations: imnc. = intramacronucleata; pcdph. = postciliodesmatophora; olig. – oligohymenophorea; spir. – spirotrichea; hettr. – heterotrichea; lit. – litostomatea; eugl. – euglenophyceae

Species Phylum Class L[μm] U[μm/s] References
Amphileptus gigas imnc. lit. 808 608 (Bullington, 1925)
Amphorides quadrilineata imnc. spir. 138 490 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Balanion comatum imnc. prostomatea 16 220 (Visser and Kiørboe, 2006)
Blepharisma pcdph. hettr. 350 600 (Sleigh and Blake, 1977; Roberts, 1981)
Coleps hirtus imnc. prostomatea 94.5 686 (Bullington, 1925)
Coleps sp. imnc. prostomatea 78 523 (Bullington, 1925)
Colpidium striatum imnc. olig. 77 570 (Beveridge et al., 2010)
Condylostoma patens pcdph. hettr. 371 1061 (Bullington, 1925; Machemer, 1974)
Didinium nasutum imnc. lit. 140 1732 (Bullington, 1925; Machemer, 1974; Roberts, 1981Sleigh and Blake, 1977)
Euplotes charon imnc. spir. 66 1053 (Bullington, 1925)
Euplotes patella imnc. spir. 202 1250 (Bullington, 1925)
Euplotes vannus imnc. spir. 82 446 (Wang et al., 2008Ricci et al., 1997)
Eutintinnus cf. pinguis imnc. spir. 147 410 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Fabrea salina pcdph. hettr. 184.1 216 (Marangoni et al., 1995)
Favella panamensis imnc. spir. 238 600 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Favella sp. imnc. spir. 150 1080 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Frontonia sp. imnc. olig. 378.5 1632 (Bullington, 1925)
Halteria grandinella imnc. spir. 50 533 (Bullington, 1925; Gilbert, 1994)
Kerona polyporum imnc. spir. 107 476.5 (Bullington, 1925)
Laboea strobila imnc. spir. 100 810 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Lacrymaria lagenula imnc. lit. 45 909 (Bullington, 1925)
Lembadion bullinum imnc. olig. 43 415 (Bullington, 1925)
Lembus velifer imnc. olig. 87 200 (Bullington, 1925)
Mesodinium rubrum imnc. lit. 38 7350 (Jonsson and Tiselius, 1990Riisgård and Larsen, 2009; Crawford and Lindholm, 1997)
Metopides contorta imnc. armophorea 115 359 (Bullington, 1925)
Nassula ambigua imnc. nassophorea 143 2004 (Bullington, 1925)
Nassula ornata imnc. nassophorea 282 750 (Bullington, 1925)
Opalina ranarum placidozoa (heterokont) opalinea 350 50 (Blake, 1975; Sleigh and Blake, 1977)
Ophryoglena sp. imnc. olig. 325 4000 (Machemer, 1974)
Opisthonecta henneg imnc. olig. 126 1197 (Machemer, 1974; Jahn and Hendrix, 1969)
Oxytricha bifara imnc. spir. 282 1210 (Bullington, 1925)
Oxytricha ferruginea imnc. spir. 150 400 (Bullington, 1925)
Oxytricha platystoma imnc. spir. 130 520 (Bullington, 1925)
Paramecium aurelia imnc. olig. 244 1650 (Bullington, 1925; Bullington, 1930)
Paramecium bursaria imnc. olig. 130 1541.5 (Bullington, 1925; Bullington, 1930)
Paramecium calkinsii imnc. olig. 124 1392 (Bullington, 1930; Bullington, 1925)
Paramecium caudatum imnc. olig. 225.5 2489.35 (Bullington, 1930; Jung et al., 2014)
Paramecium marinum imnc. olig. 115 930 (Bullington, 1925)
Paramecium multimicronucleatum imnc. olig. 251 3169.5 (Bullington, 1930)
Paramecium polycaryum imnc. olig. 91 1500 (Bullington, 1930)
Paramecium spp. imnc. olig. 200 975 (Jahn and Bovee, 1967; Sleigh and Blake, 1977; Roberts, 1981)
Paramecium tetraurelia imnc. olig. 124 784 (Funfak et al., 2015)
Paramecium woodruffi imnc. olig. 160 2013.5 (Bullington, 1930)
Porpostoma notatum imnc. olig. 107.7 1842.2 (Fenchel and Blackburn, 1999)
Prorodon teres imnc. prostomatea 175 1066 (Bullington, 1925)
Spathidium spathula imnc. lit. 204.5 526 (Bullington, 1925)
Spirostomum ambiguum pcdph. hettr. 1045 810 (Bullington, 1925)
Spirostomum sp. pcdph. hettr. 1000 1000 (Sleigh and Blake, 1977)
Spirostomum teres pcdph. hettr. 450 640 (Bullington, 1925)
Stenosemella steinii imnc. spir. 83 190 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Stentor caeruleus pcdph. hettr. 528.5 1500 (Bullington, 1925)
Stentor polymorphus pcdph. hettr. 208 887 (Bullington, 1925; Sleigh and Aiello, 1972;
Sleigh, 1968)
Strobilidium spiralis imnc. spir. 60 330 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Strobilidium velox imnc. spir. 43 150 (Gilbert, 1994)
Strombidinopsis acuminatum imnc. spir. 80 390 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Strombidium claparedi imnc. spir. 69.5 3740 (Bullington, 1925)
Strombidium conicum imnc. spir. 75 570 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Strombidium sp. imnc. spir. 33 360 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Strombidium sulcatum imnc. spir. 32.5 995 (Fenchel and Jonsson, 1988; Fenchel and Blackburn, 1999
Fenchel and Blackburn, 1999)
Stylonichia sp. imnc. spir. 167 737.5 (Bullington, 1925; Machemer, 1974)
Tetrahymena pyriformis imnc. olig. 72.8 475.6 (Sleigh and Blake, 1977; Roberts, 1981; Brennen and Winet, 1977)
Tetrahymena thermophila imnc. olig. 46.7 204.5 (Wood et al., 2007)
Tillina magna imnc. colpodea 162.5 2000 (Bullington, 1925)
Tintinnopsis kofoidi imnc. spir. 100 400 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Tintinnopsis minuta imnc. spir. 40 60 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Tintinnopsis tubulosa imnc. spir. 95 160 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Tintinnopsis vasculum imnc. spir. 82 250 (Buskey et al., 1993)
Trachelocerca olor pcdph. karyorelictea 267.5 900 (Bullington, 1925)
Trachelocerca tenuicollis pcdph. karyorelictea 432 1111 (Bullington, 1925)
Uroleptus piscis imnc. spir. 203 487 (Bullington, 1925)
Uroleptus rattulus imnc. spir. 400 385 (Bullington, 1925)
Urocentrum turbo imnc. olig. 90 700 (Bullington, 1925)
Uronema filificum imnc. olig. 25.7 1372.7 (Fenchel and Blackburn, 1999)
Uronema marinum imnc. olig. 56.9 1010 (Fenchel and Blackburn, 1999)
Uronema sp. imnc. olig. 25 1175 (Sleigh and Blake, 1977; Roberts, 1981)
Uronychia transfuga imnc. spir. 118 6406 (Leonildi et al., 1998)
Uronychia setigera imnc. spir. 64 7347 (Leonildi et al., 1998)
Uronemella spp. imnc. olig. 28 250 (Petroff et al., 2015)

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Contributor Information

Maciej Lisicki, Email: maciej.lisicki@fuw.edu.pl.

Eric Lauga, Email: e.lauga@damtp.cam.ac.uk.

Arup K Chakraborty, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States.

Arup K Chakraborty, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States.

Funding Information

This paper was supported by the following grants:

  • H2020 European Research Council 682754 to Eric Lauga.

  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/M017982/ to Raymond E Goldstein.

  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation 7523 to Raymond E Goldstein.

Additional information

Competing interests

Reviewing editor, eLife.

No competing interests declared.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing.

Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing.

Investigation, Methodology, Writing—review and editing.

Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing.

Additional files

Source data 1. Spreadsheet data for swimming eukaryotes listed in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.
elife-44907-data1.xlsx (19.5KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.44907.011
Transparent reporting form
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.44907.012

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript.

References

  1. Adam RD. Biology of giardia lamblia. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2001;14:447–475. doi: 10.1128/CMR.14.3.447-475.2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen NS, Allen RD. Cytoplasmic streaming in green plants. Annual Review of Biophysics and Bioengineering. 1978;7:497–526. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bb.07.060178.002433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bargul JL, Jung J, McOdimba FA, Omogo CO, Adung'a VO, Krüger T, Masiga DK, Engstler M. Species-Specific adaptations of trypanosome morphology and motility to the mammalian host. PLOS Pathogens. 2016;12:e1005448. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Barsanti L, Coltelli P, Evangelista V, Frassanito AM, Gualtieri P. Swimming patterns of the quadriflagellate Tetraflagellochloris mauritanica (Chlamydomonadales, chlorophyceae) Journal of Phycology. 2016;52:209–218. doi: 10.1111/jpy.12384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bauerfeind E, Elbrächter M, Steiner R, Throndsen J. Application of laser Doppler spectroscopy (LDS) in determining swimming velocities of motile phytoplankton. Marine Biology. 1986;93:323–327. doi: 10.1007/BF00401099. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Beaulieu NC, Abu-Dayya AA, McLane PJ. Estimating the distribution of a sum of independent lognormal random variables. IEEE Transactions on Communications. 1995;43:2869. doi: 10.1109/26.477480. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Beveridge OS, Petchey OL, Humphries S. Mechanisms of temperature-dependent swimming: the importance of physics, physiology and body size in determining protist swimming speed. Journal of Experimental Biology. 2010;213:4223–4231. doi: 10.1242/jeb.045435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Blake JR. Hydromechanical aspects of ciliary propulsion. In: Wu T, Brokaw C. J, Brennen C, editors. Swimming and Flying in Nature. New York:  Plenum; 1975. pp. 185–209. [Google Scholar]
  9. Boakes DE, Codling EA, Thorn GJ, Steinke M. Analysis and modelling of swimming behaviour in Oxyrrhis marina. Journal of Plankton Research. 2011;33:641–649. doi: 10.1093/plankt/fbq136. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bray D. Cell Movements. New York: Garland Science; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brennen C, Winet H. Fluid mechanics of propulsion by cilia and flagella. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics. 1977;9:339–398. doi: 10.1146/annurev.fl.09.010177.002011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Buetow DE. Euglena. American Cancer Society; 2011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bullington WE. A study of spiral movement in the ciliate infusoria. Archiv für Protistenkunde. 1925;50:219–274. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bullington WE. A further study of spiraling in the ciliate Paramecium, with a note on morphology and taxonomy. Journal of Experimental Zoology. 1930;56:423–449. doi: 10.1002/jez.1400560404. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Buskey EJ, Coulter C, Strom S. Locomotory patterns of microzooplankton: potential effects on food selectivity of larval fish. Bulletin of Marine Science. 1993;53:29–43. [Google Scholar]
  16. Campanati L, Holloschi A, Troster H, Spring H, de Souza W, Monteiro-Leal LH. Video-microscopy observations of fast dynamic processes in the protozoon Giardia lamblia. Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton. 2002;51:213–224. doi: 10.1002/cm.10026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cappuccinelli P. The Movement of Eukaryotic Cells. Netherlands, Dordrecht: Springer; 1980. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chen J, Lenaghan SC, Zhang M. Analysis of dynamics and planar motion strategies of a swimming microorganism - Giardia lamblia. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation; 2012. pp. 4204–4209. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Christensen-Dalsgaard KK, Fenchel T. Complex flagellar motions and swimming patterns of the flagellates Paraphysomonas vestita and Pteridomonas danica. Protist. 2004;155:79–87. doi: 10.1078/1434461000166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Crawford DW, Lindholm T. Some observations on vertical distribution and migration of the phototrophic ciliate Mesodinium rubrum (= Myrionecta rubra) in a stratified brackish inlet. Aquatic Microbial Ecology. 1997;13:267–274. doi: 10.3354/ame013267. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dölger J, Nielsen LT, Kiørboe T, Andersen A. Swimming and feeding of mixotrophic biflagellates. Scientific Reports. 2017;7:39892. doi: 10.1038/srep39892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fenchel T. How dinoflagellates swim. Protist. 2001;152:329–338. doi: 10.1078/1434-4610-00071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fenchel T, Blackburn N. Motile chemosensory behaviour of phagotrophic protists: mechanisms for and efficiency in congregating at food patches. Protist. 1999;150:325–336. doi: 10.1016/S1434-4610(99)70033-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fenchel T, Jonsson PR. The functional biology of Strombidium sulcatum, a marine oligotrich ciliate (Ciliophora, oligotrichina) Marine Ecology Progress Series. 1988;48:1–15. doi: 10.3354/meps048001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Freedman D, Diaconis P. Zeitschrift Fü Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie Und Verwandte Gebiete. Vol. 57. Springer; 1981. On the histogram as a density estimator: L2 theory; pp. 453–476. [Google Scholar]
  26. Funfak A, Fisch C, Abdel Motaal HT, Diener J, Combettes L, Baroud CN, Dupuis-Williams P. Paramecium swimming and ciliary beating patterns: a study on four RNA interference mutations. Integrative Biology. 2015;7:90–100. doi: 10.1039/c4ib00181h. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gadelha C, Wickstead B, Gull K. Flagellar and ciliary beating in trypanosome motility. Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton. 2007;64:629–643. doi: 10.1002/cm.20210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gilbert JJ. Jumping behavior in the oligotrich ciliates Strobilidium velox and Halteria grandinella, and its significance as a defense against rotifer predators. Microbial Ecology. 1994;27:189–200. doi: 10.1007/BF00165817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gittleson SM, Hotchkiss SK, Valencia FG. Locomotion in the marine dinoflagellate Amphidinium carterae (Hulburt) Transactions of the American Microscopical Society. 1974;93:101–105. doi: 10.2307/3225224. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gittleson SM, Jahn TL. Flagellar activity of Polytomella agilis. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society. 1968;87:464–471. doi: 10.2307/3224220. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gittleson SM, Noble RM. Locomotion in Polytomella agilis and Polytoma uvella. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society. 1973;93:101–105. doi: 10.2307/3225176. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Goldstein RE. Green algae as model organisms for biological fluid dynamics. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics. 2015;47:343–375. doi: 10.1146/annurev-fluid-010313-141426. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldstein RE. Are theoretical results 'Results'? eLife. 2018;7:e40018. doi: 10.7554/eLife.40018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Guasto JS, Johnson KA, Gollub JP. Oscillatory flows induced by microorganisms swimming in two dimensions. Physical Review Letters. 2010;105:168102. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.168102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hand WG, Collard PA, Davenport D. The effects of temperature and salinity change on swimming rate in the dinoflagellates, Gonyaulax and Gyrodinium. The Biological Bulletin. 1965;128:90–101. doi: 10.2307/1539392. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hand WG, Schmidt JA. Phototactic orientation by the marine dinoflagellate Gyrodinium dorsum kofoid. ii. flagellar activity and overall response mechanism. The Journal of Protozoology. 1975;22:494–498. doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.1975.tb05217.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Harris EH, Stern DB, Witman GB. The Chlamydomonas Sourcebook. 2nd edition. London: Academic Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hinchliff CE, Smith SA, Allman JF, Burleigh JG, Chaudhary R, Coghill LM, Crandall KA, Deng J, Drew BT, Gazis R, Gude K, Hibbett DS, Katz LA, Laughinghouse HD, McTavish EJ, Midford PE, Owen CL, Ree RH, Rees JA, Soltis DE, Williams T, Cranston KA. Synthesis of phylogeny and taxonomy into a comprehensive tree of life. PNAS. 2015;112:12764–12769. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423041112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Holwill MEJ. Hydrodynamic aspects of ciliary and flagellar movement. In: Sleigh M. A, editor. Cilia and Flagella. London: Academic Press; 1974. pp. 143–176. [Google Scholar]
  40. Holwill MEJ. The role of body oscillation in the propulsion of microorganisms. In: Wu T, Brokaw C. J, Brennen C, editors. Swimming and Flying in Nature. New York: Plenum; 1975. pp. 133–141. [Google Scholar]
  41. Holwill ME, Peters PD. Dynamics of the hispid flagellum of Ochromonas danica. The role of mastigonemes. The Journal of Cell Biology. 1974;62:322–328. doi: 10.1083/jcb.62.2.322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Horstmann U. Observations on the peculiar diurnal migration of a red tide dinophyceae in tropical shallow waters. Journal of Phycology. 1980;16:481–485. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.1980.tb03064.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Jahn TL, Bovee EC. Motile behavior of protozoa. In: Chen T. T, editor. Research in Protozoology. New York: Pergamon; 1967. pp. 41–200. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Jahn TL, Fonseca JR. Mechanisms of locomotion of flagellates: v: Trypanosoma lewisi and T. cruzi. The Journal of Protozoology. 1963;11 doi: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.1963.tb01688.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Jahn TL, Hendrix EM. Locomotion of the telotrich ciliate Opisthonecta henneguyi. Revista De La Sociedad Mexicana De Historia Natural. 1969;30:103–131. [Google Scholar]
  46. Jahn TL, Votta JJ. Locomotion of protozoa. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics. 1972;4:93–116. doi: 10.1146/annurev.fl.04.010172.000521. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Jakobsen HH, Everett LM, Strom SL. Hydromechanical signaling between the ciliate Mesodinium pulex and motile protist prey. Aquatic Microbial Ecology. 2006;44:197–206. doi: 10.3354/ame044197. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Jonsson PP, Tiselius P. Feeding behaviour, prey detection and capture efficiency of the copepod Acartia tonsa feeding on planktonic ciliates. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 1990;60:35–44. doi: 10.3354/meps060035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Jung I, Powers TR, Valles JM. Evidence for two extremes of ciliary motor response in a single swimming microorganism. Biophysical Journal. 2014;106:106–113. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.11.3703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Kamykowski D, Reed RE, Kirkpatrick GJ. Comparison of sinking velocity, swimming velocity, rotation and path characteristics among six marine dinoflagellate species. Marine Biology. 1992;113:319–328. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kamykowski D, Zentara S-J. The diurnal vertical migration of motile phytoplankton through temperature gradients1. Limnology and Oceanography. 1977;22:148–151. doi: 10.4319/lo.1977.22.1.0148. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Kirkwood TB, Feder M, Finch CE, Franceschi C, Globerson A, Klingenberg CP, LaMarco K, Omholt S, Westendorp RG. What accounts for the wide variation in life span of genetically identical organisms reared in a constant environment? Mechanisms of Ageing and Development. 2005;126:439–443. doi: 10.1016/j.mad.2004.09.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Koch AL. The logarithm in biology. 1. Mechanisms generating the log-normal distribution exactly. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 1966;12:276–290. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(66)90119-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Kullback S, Leibler RA. On information and sufficiency. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. 1951;22:79–86. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177729694. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Lauga E, Powers TR. The hydrodynamics of swimming microorganisms. Reports on Progress in Physics. 2009;72:096601. doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/72/9/096601. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Lee JW. The effect of pH on forward swimming in Euglena and Chilomonas. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society. 1954;84:395–406. [Google Scholar]
  57. Lenaghan SC, Davis CA, Henson WR, Zhang Z, Zhang M. High-speed microscopic imaging of flagella motility and swimming in Giardia lamblia trophozoites. PNAS. 2011;108:E550–E558. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1106904108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Leonildi A, Erra F, Banchetti R, Ricci N. The ethograms of Uronychia transfuga and Uronychia setigera (ciliata, hypotrichida): a comparative approach for new insights into the behaviour of protozoa. European Journal of Protistology. 1998;34:426–435. doi: 10.1016/S0932-4739(98)80011-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Levandowsky M, Kaneta PJ. Behaviour in dinoflagellates. In: Taylor F. J. R, editor. The Biology of Dinoflagellates (Botanical Monographs) Vol. 21. Blackwell Scientific; 1987. pp. 360–397. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lewis NI, Xu W, Jericho SK, Kreuzer HJ, Jericho MH, Cembella AD. Swimming speed of three species of Alexandrium (Dinophyceae) as determined by digital in-line holography. Phycologia. 2006;45:61–70. doi: 10.2216/04-59.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Limpert E, Stahel WA, Abbt M. Log-normal distributions across the sciences: keys and clues. BioScience. 2001;51:341–352. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0341:LNDATS]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Lowndes AG. On flagellar movement in unicellular organisms. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 1941;A111:111–134. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1941.tb08476.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Lowndes AG. The swimming of Monas stigmatica pringsheim and peranema Trichophorum (Ehrbg.) Stein. and Volvox sp. Additional experiments on the working of a flagellum. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London. 1944;114:325–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1944.tb00228.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Lyons RA, Saridogan E, Djahanbakhch O. The reproductive significance of human fallopian tube cilia. Human Reproduction Update. 2006;12:363–372. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dml012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Machemer H. Ciliary activity and metachronism in protozoa. In: Sleigh M. A, editor. Cilia and Flagella. London: Academic Press; 1974. pp. 199–287. [Google Scholar]
  66. Marangoni R, Batistini A, Puntoni S, Colombetti G. Temperature effects on motion parameters and the phototactic reaction of the marine ciliate Fabrea salina. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology. 1995;30:123–127. doi: 10.1016/1011-1344(95)07160-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Metzner P. Bewegungsstudien an Peridineen. Z.Bot. 1929;22:225–265. [Google Scholar]
  68. Meunier CL, Schulz K, Boersma M, Malzahn AM. Impact of swimming behaviour and nutrient limitation on predator–prey interactions in pelagic microbial food webs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 2013;446:29–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jembe.2013.04.015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Miyasaka I, Nanba K, Furuya K, Nimura Y. High-speed video observation of swimming behavior and flagellar motility of Prorocentrum minimum (Dinophyceae) Protoplasma. 1998;204:38–46. doi: 10.1007/BF01282292. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Moran J, McKean PG, Ginger ML. Eukaryotic flagella: variations in form, function, and composition during evolution. BioScience. 2014;64:1103–1114. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biu175. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Nicastro D, McIntosh JR, Baumeister W. 3D structure of eukaryotic flagella in a quiescent state revealed by cryo-electron tomography. PNAS. 2005;102:15889–15894. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0508274102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Peters N. Über Orts- und Geisselbewegung bei marinen Dinoflagellaten. Archiv für Protistenkunde. 1929;67:291–321. [Google Scholar]
  73. Petroff AP, Pasulka AL, Soplop N, Wu XL, Libchaber A. Biophysical basis for convergent evolution of two veil-forming microbes. Royal Society Open Science. 2015;2:150437. doi: 10.1098/rsos.150437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Purcell EM. Life at low Reynolds number. American Journal of Physics. 1977;45:3–11. doi: 10.1119/1.10903. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Ricci N, Luverà G, Cacciatori M, Banchetti R, Lueken W. The effects of 2 μm Hg++ on the ethogram of Euplotes vannus (Ciliata, Hypotrichida) European Journal of Protistology. 1997;33:63–71. doi: 10.1016/S0932-4739(97)80021-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Riisgård HU, Larsen PS. Ciliary-propelling mechanism, effect of temperature and viscosity on swimming speed, and adaptive significance of ‘jumping’ in the ciliate Mesodinium rubrum. Marine Biology Research. 2009;5:585–595. doi: 10.1080/17451000902729704. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Roberts AM. Hydrodynamics of protozoan swimming. In: Levandowski M, Hunter S, editors. Biochemistry and Physiology of Protozoa. Academic Press; 1981. pp. 5–66. [Google Scholar]
  78. Rodríguez JA, Lopez MA, Thayer MC, Zhao Y, Oberholzer M, Chang DD, Kisalu NK, Penichet ML, Helguera G, Bruinsma R, Hill KL, Miao J. Propulsion of african trypanosomes is driven by bihelical waves with alternating chirality separated by kinks. PNAS. 2009;106:19322–19327. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907001106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Short MB, Solari CA, Ganguly S, Powers TR, Kessler JO, Goldstein RE. Flows driven by flagella of multicellular organisms enhance long-range molecular transport. PNAS. 2006;103:8315–8319. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0600566103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Sibley TH, Herrgesell PL, Knight AW. Density dependent vertical migration in the freshwater dinoflagellate Peridinium penardii (lemm.) lemm. fo. Californicum javorn. Journal of Phycology. 1974;10:475–476. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-8817.1974.tb02743.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Sleigh MA.  Patterns of ciliary beating. Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology. 1968;22:131–150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Sleigh MA. Cilia and Flagella. London: Academic Press; 1975. [Google Scholar]
  83. Sleigh MA, Aiello E. The movement of water by cilia. Archiv für Protistenkunde. 1972;50:219–274. [Google Scholar]
  84. Sleigh MA, Blake JR. Methods of ciliary propulsion and their size limitations. In: Pedley T. J, editor. Scale Effects in Animal Locomotion. Academic Press; 1977. pp. 243–256. [Google Scholar]
  85. Sournia A. Form and function in marine phytoplankton. Biological Reviews. 1982;57:347–394. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1982.tb00702.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  86. Szyszkowicz S, Yanikome H. Limit theorem on the sum of identically distributed equally and positively correlated joint lognormals. IEEE Transactions on Communications. 2009;57:3538–3542. doi: 10.1109/TCOMM.2009.12.070539. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  87. Tam D, Hosoi AE. Optimal kinematics and morphologies for spermatozoa. Physical Review E. 2011;83 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.83.045303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Throndsen J. Motility in some marine nanoplankton flagellates. Norwegian Journal of Zoology. 1973;21:193–200. [Google Scholar]
  89. Togashi T, Motomura T, Ichimura T. Production of anisogametes and gamete motility dimorphism in Monostroma angicava. Sexual Plant Reproduction. 1997;10:261–268. doi: 10.1007/s004970050096. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Visser AW, Kiørboe T. Plankton motility patterns and encounter rates. Oecologia. 2006;148:538–546. doi: 10.1007/s00442-006-0385-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Votta JJ, Jahn TL, Griffith DL, Fonseca JR. Nature of the flagellar beat in Trachelomonas volvocina, Rhabdomonas spiralis, Menoidium cultellus, and Chilomonas paramecium. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society. 1971;90:404–412. doi: 10.2307/3225455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Wang W, Shor LM, LeBoeuf EJ, Wikswo JP, Taghon GL, Kosson DS. Protozoan migration in bent microfluidic channels. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2008;74:1945–1949. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01044-07. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Wheeler B. Phototactic vertical migration in Exuviaella baltica. Botanica Marina. 1966;9:15–17. doi: 10.1515/botm.1966.9.1-2.15. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Wichterman R. The Biology of Paramecium. Springer; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  95. Wood CR, Hard R, Hennessey TM. Targeted gene disruption of dynein heavy chain 7 of Tetrahymena thermophila results in altered ciliary waveform and reduced swim speed. Journal of Cell Science. 2007;120:3075–3085. doi: 10.1242/jcs.007369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision letter

Editor: Arup K Chakraborty1
Reviewed by: Matthew Herron2

In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.

Thank you for submitting your article "Swimming eukaryotic microorganisms exhibit a universal speed distribution" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by two peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by Arup Chakraborty as the Senior and Reviewing Editor. The following individual involved in review of your submission has agreed to reveal his identity: Matthew Herron (Reviewer #1).

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.

Summary:

This study analyzes published data on swimming speed among flagellated and ciliated microorganisms. Data from both groups fit similar, but separate, log normal distributions, leading the authors to infer a "universal way for ecological niches to be populated by abundant microorganisms." This short report is well-written, well-sourced, and has sufficient detail provided by the authors to replicate the findings. This methodology has the potential to enrich parallel genetics-based studies and provide deeper insights into the connections between ecology and evolution. However, we feel that the main claims of the paper need to be toned down or further substantiated in a revised submission.

Essential revisions:

1) The ecological implication of the results, expressed in the Abstract and at the end of the Discussion, concern how ecological niches are partitioned by microorganisms. The limitation of the analyzed data is that it is per species, and all species are treated equally, with no information about abundance. It is undoubtedly an important result that aquatic ecosystems contain many species that swim slowly and far fewer that swim quickly, at least within each category. However, without information about abundances, this result says very little about the distribution of swimming speeds within a given ecosystem; that is, the data are equally compatible with slow swimmers being rare (but diverse) and fast swimmers being common (but homogenous) or the opposite. So, the distribution of swimming speeds among all individuals is unclear. Similarly, flagellates could be common and ciliates rare or vice versa. The point that the distributions of swimming speeds among species do not necessarily reflect the distributions of swimming speeds among individuals needs to be addressed.

2) Can universality really be claimed with a set of just two distributions? Figures 2, 3, and 4 well-illustrate the authors' point, but comprise fitting and rescaling of just these two sets of data. The demonstration in Figure 4 that two log-normal distributions may be collapsed onto one another is not too surprising. It seems with such a data set on hand, there is much potential to explore a variety of questions that can enrich or explain the authors conclusions. In particular, addressing a few of the following points will enhance the paper:

• Did the authors examine any other distributions, such as cell size?

• Did the authors attempt a physical rescaling of the distributions, e.g. in terms of the Reynolds or Peclet numbers?

• Is there sufficient resolution in the data set (i.e. number of samples) to explore/compare subsets of the data such as uniflagellates versus multiflagellates and ciliates?

• Similar to the above comment, examining the swimming speed distributions of other taxonomic groups from the data set – i.e. corresponding to an early bifurcation in Figure 1 – may provide additional insights and strengthen the authors' argument for universality in the swimming speed distribution.

• While perhaps outside of the scope of the present short report, the potential implications of the authors' observation abound for other organismal systems. Did they consider examining other dataset, e.g. for higher organisms as in Gazzola et al., Nature Physics 10 (2014)?

eLife. 2019 Jul 16;8:e44907. doi: 10.7554/eLife.44907.017

Author response


Essential revisions:

1] The ecological implication of the results, expressed in the Abstract and at the end of the Discussion, concern how ecological niches are partitioned by microorganisms. The limitation of the analyzed data is that it is per species, and all species are treated equally, with no information about abundance. It is undoubtedly an important result that aquatic ecosystems contain many species that swim slowly and far fewer that swim quickly, at least within each category. However, without information about abundances, this result says very little about the distribution of swimming speeds within a given ecosystem; that is, the data are equally compatible with slow swimmers being rare (but diverse) and fast swimmers being common (but homogenous) or the opposite. So, the distribution of swimming speeds among all individuals is unclear. Similarly, flagellates could be common and ciliates rare or vice versa. The point that the distributions of swimming speeds among species do not necessarily reflect the distributions of swimming speeds among individuals needs to be addressed.

This is a very interesting point and we agree with the reviewers. Alas, since there is little or no available data for abundance, it is difficult to make claim concerning particular ecosystems. We are implicitly assuming in our paper that the sampling of the underlying distributions was random. Of course, in real ecosystems there are interactions (symbiotic, mutualistic, etc.) among species so they are not necessarily “independent”. To state our point clearly, we have added a sentence in the last paragraph of the main text.

2] Can universality really be claimed with a set of just two distributions? Figures 2, 3, and 4 well-illustrate the authors' point, but comprise fitting and rescaling of just these two sets of data. The demonstration in Figure 4 that two log-normal distributions may be collapsed onto one another is not too surprising. It seems with such a data set on hand, there is much potential to explore a variety of questions that can enrich or explain the authors conclusions. In particular, addressing a few of the following points will enhance the paper:

• Did the authors examine any other distributions, such as cell size?

Yes we have. We have now added to the paper the available data on cell sizes that we believe helps present a broader picture. Figure 2—figure supplement 2 contains histogram of cell sizes, produced using values given in the revised tables in Appendix 1. The cell sizes represent the 'characteristic' size for each cell (largest of the available sizes if different width/length were given in literature). The size distributions are distinct and no apparent similarity between them is visible. We have then used them to calculate the Reynolds and Péclet numbers, as suggested below.

• Did the authors attempt a physical rescaling of the distributions, e.g. in terms of the Reynolds or Peclet numbers?

Rescaled distributions have been added as Figure 2—figure supplement 3. We have plotted there the Reynolds number for each organism. Due to the paucity of reported viscosities in the analysed works, we assumed the viscosity to be that of water at standard conditions in each case. The distributions are different, since ciliates are generally larger and faster swimmers compared to flagellates. The Péclet number is proportional to the Reynolds number, since both contain the product of cell size and swimming velocity. Therefore, we choose one (Re) as a measure of the character of the fluid transport. We have modified the paper to indicate these points.

• Is there sufficient resolution in the data set (i.e. number of samples) to explore/compare subsets of the data such as uniflagellates versus multiflagellates and ciliates?

Unfortunately, the resolution of the subsets is not sufficient for the proposed comparison. The listed data was the information available in literature on the swimming problem. Our focus was to collect it and analyse it together. Moreover, some of the values given represent averages over samples analyzed in the papers, given with no further information on the uncertainty. In the plots, we have included the fitting errors and estimated the errors associated to the binning procedures. Within the available data, this statistical uncertainty was the only accessible measure.

• Similar to the above comment, examining the swimming speed distributions of other taxonomic groups from the data set – i.e. corresponding to an early bifurcation in Figure 1 – may provide additional insights and strengthen the authors' argument for universality in the swimming speed distribution.

Pointing back to the previous remark, we think the statistics for individual groups would not be sufficient to justify potential conclusions and thus we refrained from this analysis in the paper.

• While perhaps outside of the scope of the present short report, the potential implications of the authors' observation abound for other organismal systems. Did they consider examining other dataset, e.g. for higher organisms as in Gazzola et al., Nature Physics 10 (2014)?

The paper by Gazzola et al. concerns the relation that can be established between the Reynolds number for the flow created by a swimming organism and its swimming number, which involves the temporal details of the actuation (frequency of the periodic body motion which gives rise to the flow). In our study, we focus on unicellular microscale swimmers, and thus the Reynolds numbers rarely exceed 1 (see Figure 2—figure supplement 3), so the realm of higher Re is outside of the scope of the report.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Source data 1. Spreadsheet data for swimming eukaryotes listed in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.
    elife-44907-data1.xlsx (19.5KB, xlsx)
    DOI: 10.7554/eLife.44907.011
    Transparent reporting form
    DOI: 10.7554/eLife.44907.012

    Data Availability Statement

    All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript.


    Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

    RESOURCES