Enhanced bacterial chemotaxis in confined microchannels: Optimal performance in lane widths matching circular swimming radius

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This article deals with the chemotactic behavior of E coli bacteria in thin channels (a situation close to 2D). It combines experiments and simulations.

The authors show experimentally that, in 2D, bacteria swim up a chemotactic gradient much more effectively when they are in the presence of lateral walls. Systematic experiments identify an optimum for chemotaxis for a channel width of ~8µm, close to the average radius of the circle trajectories of the unconfined bacteria in 2D. It is known that these circles are chiral and impose that the bacteria swim preferentially along the right-side wall when there is no chemotactic gradient. In the presence of a chemotactic gradient, this larger proportion of bacteria swimming on the right wall yields chemotaxis. This effect is backed by numerical simulations and a geometrical analysis.

If the conclusions drawn from the experiments presented in this article seem clear and interesting, I find that the key elements of the mechanism of this wall-directed chemotaxis are not sufficiently emphasized. Moreover, the paper would be clearer with more details on the hypotheses and the essential ingredients of the analyses.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors investigated the chemotaxis of E. coli swimming close to the bottom surface in gradients of attractant in channels of increasingly smaller width but fixed height = 30 µm and length ~160 µm. In relatively large channels, they find that on average the cells drift in response to the gradient, despite cells close to the surface away from the walls being known to not be chemotactic because they swim in circles.

They find that this average drift is due to the cell localization close to the side walls, where they slide along the wall. Whereas the bacteria away from the walls have no chemotaxis (as shown before), the ones on the left side wall go down-gradient on average, but the ones on the right side wall go up-gradient faster, hence the average drift. They then study the effect of reducing channel width. They find that chemotaxis is higher in channels with a width of about 8 µm, which approximately corresponds to the radius of the circular swimming R. This higher chemotactic drift is concomitant to an increased density of cells on the RSW. They do simulations and modeling to suggest that the disruption of circular swimming upon collision with the wall increases the density of cells on the RSW, with a maximal effect at w = ~ 2/3 R, which is a good match for their experiments.

Strengths:

The overall result that confinement at the edge stabilises bacterial motion and allows chemotaxis is very interesting although not entirely unexpected. It is also important for understanding bacterial motility and chemotaxis under ecologically relevant conditions, where bacteria frequently swim under confinement (although its relevance for controlling infections could be questioned). The experimental part of the study is nicely supported by the model.

Weaknesses:

Several points of this study, in particular the interpretation of the width effect, need better clarification:

(1) Context:

There are a number of highly relevant previous publications that should have been acknowledged and discussed in relation to the current work:
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2023/sm/d3sm00286a
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epje/s10189-024-00450-7
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2022.04.008
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816315116
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0907542106
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15711-0
http://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15711-0
http://doi.org/10.1039/c5sm00939a

(2) Experimental setup:

a) The channels are built with asymmetric entrances (Figure 1), which could trigger a ratchet effect (because bacteria swim in circle) that could bias the rate at which cells enter into the channel, and which side they follow preferentially, especially for the narrow channel. Since the channel is short (160 µm), that would reflect on the statistics of cell distribution. Controls with straight entrances or with a reversed symmetry of the channel need to be performed to ensure that the reported results are not affected by this asymmetry.

b) The authors say the motile bacteria accumulate mostly at the bottom surface. This is strange, for a small height of 30 µm, the bacteria should be more-or-less evenly spread between the top and bottom surface. How can this be explained?

c) At the edge, some of the bacteria could escape up in the third dimension (http://doi.org/10.1039/c5sm00939a). What is the magnitude of this phenomenon in the current setup? Does it have an effect?

d) What is the cell density in the device? Should we expect cell-cell interactions to play a role here? If not, I would suggest to de-emphasize the connection to chemotaxis in the swarming paper in the introduction and discussion, which doesn't feel very relevant here, and rather focus on the other papers mentioned in point 1.

e) We are not entirely convinced by the interpretation of the results in narrow channels. What is the causal relationship between the increased density on the RSW and the higher chemotactic drift? The authors seem to attribute higher drift to this increased RSW density, which emerges due to the geometric reasons. But if there is no initial bias, the same geometric argument would induce the same increased density of down-gradient swimmers on the LSW, and so, no imbalance between RSW and LSW density. Could it be the opposite that the increased RSW density results from chemotaxis (and maybe reinforces it), not the other way around? Confinement could then deplete one wall due to the proximity of the other, and/or modify the swimming pattern - 8 µm is very close to the size of the body + flagellum. To clarify this point, we suggest measuring the bacterial distributions in the absence of a gradient for all channel widths as a control.

(3) Simulations:

The simulations treat the wall interaction very crudely. We would suggest treating it as a mechanical object that exerts elastic or "hard sphere" forces and torques on the bacteria for more realistic modeling. Notably, the simulations have a constant (chemotaxis independent) rate of wall escape by tumbling. We would expect that reduced tumbling due to up-gradient motility induces a longer dwell time at the wall.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This paper addresses through experiment and simulation the combined effects of bacterial circular swimming near no-slip surfaces and chemotaxis in simple linear gradients. The authors have constructed a microfluidic device in which a gradient of L-aspartate is established to which bacteria respond while swimming while confined in channels of different widths. There is a clear effect that the chemotactic drift velocity reaches a maximum in channel widths of about 8 microns, similar in size to the circular orbits that would prevail in the absence of side walls. Numerical studies of simplified models confirm this connection.

The experimental aspects of this study are well executed. The design of the microfluidic system is clever in that it allows a kind of "multiplexing" in which all the different channel widths are available to a given sample of bacteria.

While the data analysis is reasonably convincing, I think that the authors could make much better use of what must be voluminous data on the trajectories of cells by formulating the mathematical problem in terms of a suitable Fokker-Planck equation for the probability distribution of swimming directions. In particular, I would like to see much more analysis of how incipient circular trajectories are interrupted by collisions with the walls and how this relates to enhanced chemotaxis. In essence, there needs to be a much clearer control analysis of trajectories without sidewalls to understand the mechanism in their presence.

The authors argue that these findings may have relevance to a number of physiological and ecological contexts. Yet, each of these would be characterized by significant heterogeneity in pore sizes and geometries, and thus it is very unclear whether or how the findings in this work would carry over to those situations.