Physics of Life seminars

Understanding the properties of active matter is a challenge which is currently driving a rapid growth in soft- and bio-physics. Some of the most important examples of active matter are at the microscale, and include active colloids and suspensions of microorganisms, both as a simple active fluid (single species) and as mixed suspensions of active and passive elements. In this last class of systems, recent experimental and theoretical work has started to provide a window into new phenomena including activity-induced depletion interactions, phase separation, and the possibility to extract net work from active suspensions. Here I will present our work on a paradigmatic example of mixed active-passive system, where the activity is provided by swimming microalgae. Macro- and micro-scopic experiments reveal that microorganism-colloid interactions are dominated by rare close encounters leading to large displacements through direct entrainment. Simulations and theoretical modelling show that the ensuing particle dynamics can be understood in terms of a simple jump-diffusion process, combining standard diffusion with Poisson-distributed jumps. Entrainment length can be understood within the framework of Taylor dispersion as a competition between advection by the no-slip surface of the cell body and microparticle diffusion. Building on these results, we then ask how external control of the dynamics of the active component (e.g. induced microswimmer anisotropy/inhomogeneity) can be used to alter the transport of passive cargo. As a first step in this direction, we study the behaviour of mixed active-passive systems in confinement. The resulting spatial inhomogeneity in swimmers’ distribution and orientation has a dramatic effect on the spatial distribution of passive particles, with the colloids accumulating either towards the boundaries or towards the bulk of the sample depending on the size of the container. We show that this can be used to induce the system to de-mix spontaneously.

In 1676, using candle light and a small glass sphere as the lens, van Leeuwenhoek discovered the microscopic world of living microorganisms. Today, using lasers, spatial light modulators, digital cameras and computers, we study the statistical and fluid mechanics of microswimmers in ways that were unimaginable only 50 years ago. With light we can image swimming bacteria in 3D, apply controllable force fields or sculpt their 3D environment. In addition to shaping the physical world outside cells we can use light to control the internal state of genetically modified bacteria. I will review our recent work with light-bacteria interactions, going from some fundamental problems in the fluid and statistical mechanics of microswimmers to the use of bacteria as propellers for micro-machines or as a "living" paint controlled by light.

Neural networks can learn and recognize subtle correlations in high dimensional inputs. However, neural networks are simply many-body systems with strong non-linearities and disordered interactions. Hence, many-body physical systems with similar interactions should be able to show neural network-like behavior. Here we show neural network-like behavior in the nucleation dynamics of promiscuously interacting molecules with multiple stable crystalline phases. Using a combination of theory and experiments, we show how the physics of the system dictates relationships between the difficulty of the pattern recognition task solved, time taken and accuracy. This work shows that high dimensional pattern recognition and learning are not special to software algorithms but can be achieved by the collective dynamics of sufficiently disordered molecular systems.

It is sometimes said that there are two reasons why physics is so successful as a science. One is that it deals with very simple problems. The other is that it attempts to account only for universal aspects of systems at a desired level of description, with lower level phenomena subsumed into a small number of adjustable parameters. It is a widespread belief that this approach seems unlikely to be useful in biology, which is intimidatingly complex, where “everything has an exception”, and where there are a huge number of undetermined parameters. I will try to argue, nonetheless, that there are important, experimentally-testable aspects of biology that exhibit universality, and should be amenable to being tackled from a physics perspective. My suggestion is that this can lead to useful new insights into the existence and universal characteristics of living systems. I will try to justify this point of view by contrasting the goals and practices of the field of condensed matter physics with materials science, and then by extension, the goals and practices of the newly emerging field of “Physics of Living Systems” with biology. Specific biological examples that I will discuss include the following: Universal patterns of gene expression in cell biology Universal scaling laws in ecosystems, including the species-area law, Kleiber’s law, Paradox of the Plankton Universality of the genetic code Universality of thermodynamic utilization in microbial communities Universal scaling laws in the tree of life The question of what can be learned from studying universal phenomena in biology will also be discussed. Universal phenomena, by their very nature, shed little light on detailed microscopic levels of description. Yet there is no point in seeking idiosyncratic mechanistic explanations for phenomena whose explanation is found in rather general principles, such as the central limit theorem, that every microscopic mechanism is constrained to obey. Thus, physical perspectives may be better suited to answering certain questions such as universality than traditional biological perspectives. Concomitantly, it must be recognized that the identification and understanding of universal phenomena may not be a good answer to questions that have traditionally occupied biological scientists. Lastly, I plan to talk about what is perhaps the central question of universality in biology: why does the phenomenon of life occur at all? Is it an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics or some special geochemical accident? What methodology could even begin to answer this question? I will try to explain why traditional approaches to biology do not aim to answer this question, by comparing with our understanding of superconductivity as a physical phenomenon, and with the theory of universal computation. References Nigel Goldenfeld, Tommaso Biancalani, Farshid Jafarpour. Universal biology and the statistical mechanics of early life. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 375, 20160341 (14 pages) (2017). Nigel Goldenfeld and Carl R. Woese. Life is Physics: evolution as a collective phenomenon far from equilibrium. Ann. Rev. Cond. Matt. Phys. 2, 375-399 (2011).

When was the last time you ran into a giant? Chances are never. Almost 100 years ago, JBS Haldane posed an outwardly simple yet complex question – what is the most optimal size (for a biological system)? The living world around us contains a huge diversity of organisms, each with its own characteristic size. Even the size of subcellular organelles is tightly controlled. In absence of physical rulers, how do cells and organisms truly “know” how large is large enough? What are the mechanisms in place to enforce size control? Many of these questions have motivated generations of scientists to look for physical principles underlying size control in biological systems. In the next edition of Emory's Theory and Modeling of Living Systems (TMLS) workshop series, our panel of speakers will take a close look at these questions, across the entire scale - from the molecular, all the way to the ecosystem.

Many of us came to biology from physics. There we have been trained on such classic examples as muon g-2, where experimental data and theoretical predictions agree to many significant digits. Now, working in biology, we routinely hear that it is messy, most details matter, and that the best hope for theory in biology is to be semi-qualitative, predict general trends, and to forgo the hope of ever making quantitative predictions with the precision that we are used to in physics. Colloquially, we should be satisfied even if data and models differ so much that plotting them on the same plot makes little sense. However, some of us won’t be satisfied by this. So can we take theory in biology seriously and predict experimental outcomes within (small) error bars? Certainly, we won’t be able to predict everything, but this is never required, even in traditional physics. But we should be able to choose some features of data that are nontrivial and interesting, and focus on them. We also should be able to find different classes of models --- maybe even null models --- that match biology better, and thus allow for a better agreement. It is even possible that large-dimensional datasets of modern high-throughput experiments, and the ensuing “more is different” statistical physics style models will make quantitative, precise theory easier. To explore the role of quantitative theory in biology, in this workshop, eight speakers will address some of the following general questions based on their specific work in different corners of biology: Which features of biological data are predictable? Which types of models are best suited to making quantitative predictions in different fields? Should theorists interested in quantitative predictions focus on different questions, not typically asked by biologists? Do large, multidimensional datasets make theories (and which theories?) more or less likely to succeed? This will be an unapologetically theoretical physics workshop — we won’t focus on a specific subfield of biology, but will explore these questions across the fields, hoping that the underlying theoretical frameworks will help us find the missing connections.

Understanding individual and macroscopic transport properties of motile micro-organisms in complex environments is a timely question, relevant to many ecological, medical and technological situations. At the fundamental level, this question is also receiving a lot of attention as fluids loaded with swimming micro-organisms has become a rich domain of applications and a conceptual playground for the statistical physics of “active matter”. The existence of microscopic sources of energy borne by the motile character of these micro-swimmers is driving self-organization processes at the origin of original emergent phases and unconventional macroscopic properties leading to revisit many standard concepts in the physics of suspensions. In this presentation, I will report on a recent exploration on the question of spontaneous formation of large scale collective motion in relation with the rheological response of active suspensions. I will also present new experiments showing how the motility of bacteria can be controlled such as to extract work macroscopically.

The Smoluchowski equation has often been used as the starting point of many continuum models of active suspensions. However, its six-dimensional nature depending on time, space and orientation requires a huge computational cost, fundamentally limiting its use for large-scale problems, such as mixing and transport of active fluids in turbulent flows. Despite the singular nature in strain-dominant flows, the generalised Taylor dispersion (GTD) theory (Frankel & Brenner 1991, J. Fluid Mech. 230:147-181) has been understood to be one of the most promising ways to reduce the Smoluchowski equation into an advection-diffusion equation, the mean drift and diffusion tensor of which rely on ‘local’ flow information only. In this talk, we will introduce an exact transformation of the Smoluchowski equation into such an advection-diffusion equation requiring only local flow information. Based on this transformation, a new advection-diffusion equation will subsequently be proposed by taking an asymptotic analysis in the limit of small particle velocity. With several examples, it will be demonstrated that the new advection-diffusion model, non-singular in strain-dominant flows, outperforms the GTD theory.

In this talk, I will describe my lab’s recent efforts to understand the design principles of the active, soft materials that drive cell morphogenesis. In particular, we are interested in how collections of myosin II motors and actin polymers generate, relax, sense and adapt to mechanical force. I will discuss how motor-filament interactions lead to either distributed extensile or contractile stresses as the mechanics of the system changes from fluid to solid. Using optical control of motors, we are now exploring how spatially structured stress can be used to drive local flows and motion. If time, I will also describe how feedbacks between local geometry and activity can be harnessed to drive morphogenetic changes in model systems.

The effect of non Newtonian liquid rheology on the swimming performance of microorganisms is still poorly understood, despite numerous recent studies. In our effort to clarify some aspects of this problem, we have developed a series of magnetic synthetic swimmers that self-propel immersed in a fluid by emulating the swimming strategy of flagellated microorganisms. With these devices, it is possible to control some aspects of the motion with the objective to isolate specific effects. In this talk, recent results on the effects of shear-thinning viscosity and viscoelasticity on the motion of helical swimmers will presented and discussed. Also, a number of other new uses of the synthetic swimmers will be presented including swimming across gradients, swimming in sand, interactions and rheometry.

Archaea have evolved to survive in some of the most extreme environments on earth. Life in extreme, nutrient-poor conditions gives the opportunity to probe fundamental energy limitations on movement and response to stimuli, two essential markers of living systems. Here we use three-dimensional holographic microscopy and computer simulations to show that halophilic archaea achieve chemotaxis with power requirements one hundred-fold lower than common eubacterial model systems. Their swimming direction is stabilised by their flagella (archaella), enhancing directional persistence in a manner similar to that displayed by eubacteria, albeit with a different motility apparatus. Our experiments and simulations reveal that the cells are capable of slow but deterministic chemotaxis up a chemical gradient, in a biased random walk at the thermodynamic limit.

The “soft, active, and living matter” community has grown tremendously in recent years, conducting exciting research at the interface between soft matter and biological systems. But are all living systems also soft matter systems? Do the ideas of function (or purpose) in biological systems require us to introduce deep new ideas into the framework of soft matter theories? Does the (often) qualitatively different character of data in biological experiments require us to change the types of experiments we conduct and the goals of our theoretical treatments? Eight speakers will anchor the workshop, exploring these questions across a range of biological system scales. Each speaker will deliver a 10-minute talk with another 10 minutes set aside for moderated questions/discussion. We expect the talks to be broad, bold, and provocative, discussing both the nature of the theoretical tools and experimental techniques we have at present and also those we think we will ultimately need to answer deep questions at the interface of soft matter and biology.

We will organize the workshop around one question: “Now that we can track (most) everything, what can we do with the data?” Given the recent dramatic advances in technology, we now have behavioral data sets with orders of magnitude more accuracy, dimensionality, diversity, and size than we had even a few years ago. That being said, there is still little agreement as to what theoretical frameworks can inform our understanding of these data sets and suggest new experiments we can perform. We hope that after this workshop we’ll see a variety of new ideas and perhaps gain some inspiration. We have invited eight speakers, each studying different systems, scales, and topics, to provide 10 minute presentations focused on the above question, with another 10 minutes set aside for questions/discussions (moderated by the two of us). Although we naturally expect speakers to include aspects of their own work, we have encouraged all of them to think broadly and provocatively. We are also hoping to organize some breakout sessions after the talks so that we can have some more expanded discussions about topics arising during the meeting.