![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1997, The National Academy of Sciences of the USA Biophysics The efficiency of propulsion by a rotating flagellumDepartment of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 *Deceased March 7, 1997. The original version of this
manuscript was completed by E.M.P. on April 26, 1978. It is an
elaboration of thoughts presented in figures 13 and 14 of “Life at
low Reynolds number” (1). A later version of the manuscript dated
October 5, 1992, included an Appendix in which E.M.P. worked out the
propulsion efficiency of a rotating helical cylinder connected to a
sphere (i.e., the power required to drag the sphere through a viscous
medium, derived from Stokes law, divided by the power expended by the
flagellar rotary motor). That work is not included here, because a
similar calculation has been given by Childress (2). E.M.P. concluded
that if the ratio of the viscous drag on a thin cylinder moving
sideways at a given velocity to the viscous drag on the cylinder moving
at the same velocity lengthwise were “α = 2, which it is supposed
to be … the propulsion efficiency cannot exceed 3% under any
circumstances.” With more realistic values, he estimated a maximum
of 1.7%. Finally, if the fluid were to slip over the surface of the
filament, the efficiency would increase considerably, reaching 11% at
α = 4 and 25% at α = 9. Some additions have been made to the text,
in the interest of making the work more accessible to the general
reader. These are set off in square brackets. The entries in Table 1,
missing in both versions of the manuscript, were deduced from
experiments recorded in a lab notebook dated June 23, 1978. The figures
were drawn by E.M.P. as part of the original manuscript; legends have
been added. The editing has been done by Aravinthan D. T. Samuel,
in collaboration with Howard A. Stone and Howard C. Berg. Reprint
requests may be sent by mail to Howard C. Berg, Rowland Institute for
Science, 100 Edwin H. Land Blvd., Cambridge, MA 02142, or by e-mail to
berg/at/rowland.org. Communicated by Howard C. Berg, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA Accepted July 29, 1997. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract [At very low Reynolds number, the regime in which fluid dynamics
is governed by Stokes equations, a helix that translates along its axis
under an external force but without an external torque will necessarily
rotate. By the linearity of the Stokes equations, the same helix that
is caused to rotate due to an external torque will necessarily
translate. This is the physics that underlies the mechanism of
flagellar propulsion employed by many microorganisms. Here, I examine
the linear relationships between forces and torques and translational
and angular velocities of helical objects to understand the nature of
flagellar propulsion.] Keywords: bacteria, motility, hydrodynamics, low Reynolds
number Much has been written about the fluid mechanics of the helical
flagellum with which some microorganisms propel themselves [the
earliest studies beginning with Ludwig (3)]. Recent theoretical
studies include papers by Chwang and Wu (4), by Lighthill (5–7), by
Garcia de la Torre and Bloomfield (8), and by Brennen and Winet (9).
Like the classic paper by Taylor (10), these are aimed at deriving from
first principles the flow around a moving helix, calculating the
associated force and torque, and determining thereby the motion of the
helix and a large attached body. The helical flagellum is supposed
either to rotate as a whole, like a rigid corkscrew, or to deform
continuously in a traveling helical wave, like a helical snake. The two
motions are externally indistinguishable in the limit of vanishing
thickness of the helical filament, but the latter case calls for some
mechanism inside the flagellum to drive the wave. It has been shown
that in the case of the bacterium Escherichia coli the
flagellum simply rotates, driven by a rotary motor in or within the
cell wall (11, 12). The flagellum is simply a rather gently curving
helical filament of protein. Usually a cell has more than one
flagellum. When the cell swims, its several flagella gather together
into a helical bundle, the rotation of which generates a thrust that
pushes the cell from the rear. Reversed rotation causes the bundle to
come apart (13) and results, not in steady motion of the cell in the
opposite direction, but in an erratic tumbling motion (14). In this
note, only the steady forward propulsion of the cell driven by the
rotating flagellar bundle will be considered. Instead of calculating the hydrodynamic forces on a rotating flagellum
of some particular shape, I want to develop some general relations by
taking a different approach. Consider any propulsive device which
consists of some rigid object rotating about a fixed axis. A corkscrew
is only one example—the shape need not be that of a regular helix. Let
us call the object, for short, a propeller. Indeed, an object shaped
like a marine screw propeller could be an acceptable candidate. But
whatever the shape, the rotation is to be so slow that its Reynolds
number ( ) is very small. [The Reynolds number of an object
of dimension a moving with velocity
v through a fluid of density ρ and dynamic viscosity η
is
is typically 10−4 or less.
Inertial forces are utterly negligible. How a similar propeller would
work at high Reynolds number is quite irrelevant. Imagine a ship in a
sea of molasses with its propeller turning at one revolution per month
( 10−3). I know of no theorem that would enable one
to predict with certainty whether motion ahead or astern would
result.We consider only two degrees of freedom of the isolated propeller,
rotation at angular speed ω around its axis and translation at
velocity v along that axis, as shown in Fig.
Fig.1.1
Of course, these constants will be somewhat modified by the ship
or cell to which we shall eventually attach the propeller and which
will be the actual source of external force and torque. But for the
present we may think of the force and torque as applied by a
thin, perfectly stiff, untwistable axial wire. Whether such
“mathematical” wire can be found does not matter. Eventually, we
shall be interested in the real flagellum’s stiffness. We may also use
such a mathematical wire to connect two different propellers together
to form a single propeller, as in Fig.
Fig.2.2
We show first that B and C must have the same
sign. Consider two cases: (i) Let the propeller be pushed by
an external force F1 applied by an axial wire at
speed v1. Constrain it from rotating by a torque
N1 of precisely the strength required to make
ω1 = 0. [By Eqs. 3a, the] force and torque
are then given by:
Now suppose we have [a test] propeller for which
Bt ≠ Ct. We could
construct a special propeller with Bs =
Cs = −(Bt +
Ct)/2 and attach it in series with our
[test] propeller by one of our thin, rigid axial wires. [The
propulsion matrix of the composite propeller would be
Pc = Ps +
Pt] for which
We turn now to the question of propulsion of the bacterial cell by a
rigidly rotating flagellum or flagellar bundle, assured that the
relevant properties of the propeller, at least in isolation, are
completely specified by the three independent elements of its
propulsion matrix, A, B, and D. The
cell itself is characterized by the propulsion matrix
P0, which is presumably diagonal, with its only
nonzero elements A0 and
D0. These are given exactly by the Stokes drag
relations for translation and rotation as A0 =
6πηa and D0 =
8πηa3. We now connect the propeller to the motor in the cell. We shall assume
that the proximity of the cell does not seriously disturb the flow
around the propeller. Our results would be strictly correct if we used
a long thin wire as a propeller shaft. Because most of the flagellum is
in fact relatively far from the cell, we may hope to achieve a
reasonably good approximation. The cell, of course, must rotate continuously in a sense opposite
to the propeller rotation, there being no external torques on the
system. We denote by Ω the angular velocity of the cell. Both the
flagellum and the cell must translate at the same speed v.
The torque on the cell must be equal and opposite to the torque on the
propeller; likewise, the force on the cell must be equal and opposite
to the force on the propeller. Fig.
Fig.44
. Using the relations above, we find
AD, Eqs. 12 and 14 may be well
approximated by
for the propulsion of a
cell of given A0? There is, as we find by
substituting into Eq. 16ab:
max, is attained when
k =
A0/Ap and has the value
max depends only on the shape of the
propeller itself, a rather remarkable result. Given any propeller
shape, Eq. 17 gives the greatest efficiency attainable in
propelling anything with such a propeller, and the relation
A = A0 tells us how to match the
propeller to the object being propelled. Incidentally,
A = A0 is just the condition
under which the force required to drag the cell through the fluid at
speed v is equal to the force required to drag the locked
propeller through the fluid at the same speed. [Therefore, the
swimming speed of a cell driven by a maximally efficient flagellum is
itself, which, as we shall see, is not
more than a few percent. There remains, of course, the unknown error
arising from interference of the flow fields around cell and propeller.
It seems unlikely that such an effect would increase the
efficiency, so we are probably safe in regarding Eq. 18 as
an upper bound on the propulsive efficiency attainable with a flagellum
of a given shape. The efficiency of a flagellar bundle of
the given shape will be lower still, owing to dissipation within the
cross section of the bundle where the fluid between adjacent filaments
is necessarily undergoing shear.
For any given shape of propeller, the elements of the propulsion matrix
A, B, and D can be determined by very
simple experiments with a model. Consider the propeller of Fig.
Fig.55 1. Measure the sinking speed v1
and the speed of rotation Ω1:
A few propellers in the form of regular helices were tested by the
method just described. The fluid used was Dow–Corning [silicon oil.]
The results are given in Table 1.
Table 1 [Elements of propulsion matrices and propulsion
efficiencies for flagellar models dropped in
silicon oil]
[Test helices (Fig. (Fig.5)5 cm−1 sec−1). The sinking speeds
and speeds of rotation were measured, and A, B, and
D were determined through Eqs. 20a and 21; their values have been divided by 6πη, so that their
dimensions are cm, cm2, and cm3, respectively.
max is the maximal propulsion efficiency expected when
the test helix is connected to a sphere of radius A (Eq.
22). f is the motor speed required to drive that
sphere 20A sec−1 (Eq. 19).]Acknowledgments We (A. D. T. Samuel, H. A. Stone, and H. C.
Berg) thank Bob Macnab for his comments on the manuscript sent to
E.M.P. May 12, 1978. References 1. Purcell E M. Am J Phys. 1977;45:3–11. 2. Childress S. Mechanics of Swimming and Flying. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press; 1981. pp. 42–50. 3. Ludwig W. Z Vergl Physiol. 1930;13:397–504. 4. Chwang A T, Wu T Y. J Fluid Mech. 1976;75:677–689. 5. Lighthill M J. SIAM Rev. 1976;8:161–230. 6. Lighthill M J. J Eng Math. 1996;30:25–34. 7. Lighthill M J. J Eng Math. 1996;30:35–78. 8. Garcia de la Torre J, Bloomfield V A. Biophys J. 1977;20:49–68. [PubMed] 9. Brennen C, Winet H. Annu Rev Fluid Mech. 1977;9:339–398. 10. Taylor G I. Proc R Soc London Ser A. 1952;209:447–461. 11. Berg H C, Anderson R A. Nature (London). 1973;245:380–382. [PubMed] 12. Silverman M, Simon M. Nature (London). 1974;249:73–74. [PubMed] 13. Macnab R M, Ornston M K. J Mol Biol. 1977;112:1–30. [PubMed] 14. Berg H C, Brown D A. Nature (London). 1972;239:500–504. [PubMed] 15. Happel J, Brenner H. Low Reynolds Number Hydrodynamics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1967. 16. Batchelor G K. An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press; 1967. p. 228. 17. Lowe G, Meister M, Berg H C. Nature (London). 1987;325:637–640. |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Biophys J. 1977 Oct; 20(1):49-67.
[Biophys J. 1977]Nature. 1973 Oct 19; 245(5425):380-2.
[Nature. 1973]Nature. 1974 May 3; 249(452):73-4.
[Nature. 1974]J Mol Biol. 1977 May 5; 112(1):1-30.
[J Mol Biol. 1977]Nature. 1972 Oct 27; 239(5374):500-4.
[Nature. 1972]