Chapter 11

Magnetic swarm control of microorganisms

Paul Seung Soo Kim; Aaron T. Becker; Yan Ou; Dal Hyung Kim§; Anak Agung Julius; MinJun Kim    Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States
University of Houston, Houston, TX, United States
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, United States
§Rowland Institute at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, United States

Abstract

Tetrahymena pyriformis is a single cell eukaryote that can be modified to respond to magnetic fields, a response called magnetotaxis. Naturally, this microorganism cannot respond to magnetic fields, but after modification using iron oxide nanoparticles, cells are magnetized and exhibit constant magnetic dipole strength. In experiments, a rotating field is applied to cells using a two-dimensional approximate Helmholtz coil system. Using rotating magnetic fields, we characterize discrete cells' swarm swimming which is affected by several factors. The behavior of the cells under these fields is explained in detail. After the field is removed, relatively straight swimming is observed. We also generate increased heterogeneity within a population of cells to improve controllability of a swarm, which is explored in a cell model. By exploiting this straight swimming behavior, we propose a method to control discrete cells utilizing a single global magnetic input. Successful implementation of this swarm control method would enable teams of microrobots to perform a variety of in vitro microscale tasks impossible for single microrobots, such as pushing objects or simultaneous micromanipulation of discrete entities.

Keywords

Tetrahymena pyriformis; Iron oxide nanoparticles; Magnetotaxis; Swarm control; Microrobot

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under CMMI 1000255, CMMI 1000284, and by ARO W911F-11-1-0490.

Permissions

This chapter was first published in an article in the Journal of Nanoparticle Research and reused with permission of Springer [32]. Sections of this chapter were also used in an earlier version presented at The International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence on October 30, 2013 [33], and IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems on November 13, 2013 [31], and reprinted, with permission (©2013 IEEE).

11.1 Introduction

Navigating microrobots through low Reynolds number fluids is a large hurdle in the field of robotics. In low Reynolds number environments, viscous forces dominate over inertial forces, and traditional methods of swimming will not work. Nature has developed methods to overcome viscous forces, such as cilia and flagella, through the use of non-reciprocal motion. Many research groups have looked to nature for inspiration and have developed such robotic microswimmers [110]. While these robots are capable of swimming in microfluidic environments, they are not able to be controlled to discrete points. We have developed a versatile microrobot platform by focusing on the well-studied [11] protozoan Tetrahymena pyriformis (T. pyriformis). This microorganism makes a capable robot, as it has sensing abilities (sensory organelles), a powerful propulsion system (cilia that propels the cell up to 1000 μm/s, or 20× its body length), is powered by its environment (takes nutrients in from its surroundings), and is cheap to produce en masse (cell culturing). Unlike other abiotic microswimmers, which require an external input to generate propulsion through rotation of the swimmers body, T. pyriformis are self-propelled. As a result, this protozoan makes an ideal candidate for a microrobot.

To control microorganisms, specifically T. pyriformis, their behavioral response to stimuli is utilized. This response is known as a taxis. T. pyriformis has exhibited galvanotaxis (response to electric fields) [1214], chemotaxis (chemical gradient) [15,16], and phototaxis (light) [14]. While abiotic microrobot platforms exploit the specificity of engineered inorganic actuators, it is a great obstacle to imbed onboard sensing equipment analogous to the sensory organelles found in microorganisms. As a result, we are greatly interested in further characterizing T. pyriformis as a microrobot and organic actuator.

Magnetic fields are a great tool to control objects in the respect that they are able to be implemented globally without affecting other materials and demonstrate excellent material penetration. Magnetic fields have been used by researchers to control bacteria [1719] as well as abiotic microswimmers [3,5]. T. pyriformis cells have demonstrated that they can ingest particles up to 2.7 μm in diameter [20]. As a result, when seeding a culture tube containing T. pyriformis with iron oxide nanoparticles, we essentially create steerable robots that respond to magnetic fields after magnetization. In a low frequency magnetic field, these swimmers will rotate in sync with the input frequency. We cannot directly control the amount of ingested iron oxide in cells, so naturally, after magnetization, there is some magnetic dipole strength heterogeneity, potentially allowing discrete control of these microrobots exploiting their step-out frequency, or the rotation field input frequency at which a magnetically responsive robot cannot follow. This has been investigated in magnet swimmers [21], but differs from our system because there is randomness in using microorganisms: motion and swimming parameters are less uniform and predictable with biological samples versus robots fabricated with precise methods. The global nature of magnetic fields makes discrete individual cell control difficult. Nevertheless, using a three-dimensional approximate Helmholtz system, a single T. pyriformis has been controlled and tracked in three dimensions [22]. Feedback algorithms and computer controlled magnetic fields have also been used to steer the cells [23,24].

Artificially magnetotactic T. pyriformis (AMT) align under a uniform magnetic field due to the torque generated. The response and time to align itself to a magnetic field is partially a function of the magnetic dipole strength, which is different for all cells. By exploiting the magnetic dipole strength heterogeneity, multiple cells could be controlled using a single global magnetic field. In this chapter, we explore works regarding the swimming behavior of AMT after nanoparticle modification under rotating magnetic fields in detail, and propose a method for controlling a swarm of cells based on the results and model.

11.2 Materials and methods

11.2.1 Tetrahymena pyriformis culturing

T. pyriformis (Fig. 11.1, left) is cultured in a standard growth medium composed of 0.1% w/v select yeast extract (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and 1% w/v tryptone (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) in deionized water. Cell lines are maintained by transferring a small amount of cells into fresh medium weekly and incubated at 28°C. Cells typically reach full saturation in 48 h [25]. T. pyriformis is a pear shaped cell that is 25 μm × 50 μm in size. It is a powerful swimmer, resulting from the arrays of ∼600 cilia on its body. The cell utilizes two types of cilia: oral (for ingesting particles) and motile (arranged in arrays along the cells length used for swimming). The ciliary arrays run along the major axis of the cell, and are on a slight axis. This slight angle results in a corkscrew motion during swimming.

Image
Figure 11.1 (Left) A single Tetrahymena pyriformis cell without any ingested iron oxide. (Inset) A cell with internalized magnetized iron oxide. The scale bar is 25 μm. (Right) Two pairs of approximate Helmholtz coils integrated into a microscope stage.

11.2.2 Artificially magnetotactic T. pyriformis

T. pyriformis cells do not normally respond to magnetic fields, but we have developed a method to make them artificially magnetotactic. 50 nm iron oxide particles (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) are added to culture medium with T. pyriformis and then gently agitated to ensure uptake of the magnetite. The cells ingest these particles through their oral apparatus and enclose them in vesicles. In previous experiments, we have observed the internalized iron oxide in randomly scattered vesicles in the cell body, as well as their alignment after magnetization [26]. The solution of cells is exposed to a permanent neodymium–iron–boron magnet (K&J Magnetics, Pipersville, PA). This magnetizes the ingested magnetite, as the particles should be fully saturated to react with the applied rotational magnetic fields. This exposure also separates the cells from the extraneous particles not consumed in the solution. After magnetization, the ingested iron oxide forms a rod like shape inside the cell body along the cell's major axis due to the N–S poles. When a magnetic field is applied, the torque generated can be calculated using

τ=m×B=mBsinθ

Image (11.1)

where τ, m, and B represent the torque, magnetic moment, and the magnetic field, respectively. θ is the angle difference between the magnetic moment and the magnetic field. If the cell is orientated in a direction such that there is some nonzero value of θ, a torque will be generated, steering the cell to the direction of the magnetic field. Thus, when the cell is aligned with a magnetic field, no torque is generated and the cell will continue to swim along this magnetic field.

AMT exhibit axial magnetotaxis. When cells are exposed to a permanent magnet after ingesting iron oxide, the internalized iron oxide becomes magnetized. However, the orientation of the dipole is random. That is, some cells will have a north-to-south polarity from the cell anterior to posterior, while other cells have the polarity reversed. This results in cells aligning themselves to any applied magnetic field, but they may swim in opposite directions. In experiments where a rotating magnetic field was implemented, the orientation of swimming AMT may differ in phase by about 180°. Experiments were conducted within an hour after magnetization, during which we assume the dipole strength remains constant. As T. pyriformis exhibit negative geotaxis, we have observed no surface effects whether they have or have not ingested iron oxide. In open channel observations, the cells swim freely throughout the vertical height of the fluid medium. Their swimming is unaffected in the presence of small aggregate magnetic particles, as they swim over and around them. As a result, we have assumed negligible surface effects for our models.

11.2.3 Experimental setup

Cells are placed in a microchannel to minimize any fluid flow and for ease of visualization. Microchannels are fabricated using SU-8 molds on silicon wafers made using standard photolithography techniques [27]. An elastomer and curing agent mixture is poured onto silanized SU-8 molds. The resulting cured PDMS mold is then adhered onto glass slides using oxygen plasma treatment. Microchannels containing AMT are placed on the stage of an inverted LEICA DM IRB microscope. Images are captured for cells under constantly rotating magnetic fields with a Photron Fastcam SA3 using a 4× objective at 125 frames per second. An Edmund Optics 3112C CMOS camera is used to image cells with a 10× objective at 21.49 frames per second during characterization of cell motion when the a magnetic field is toggled. The final set of experiments are imaged with a Point Grey FL3-U3-13Y3M-C CMOS camera using a 4× objective at 30 frames per second while the frequency of the fields are varied.

At the center of the microscope stage is an approximate 2D Helmholtz coil system. Two pairs of electromagnets are placed on the x and y-axes to generate uniform magnetic field in 2 dimensions. Microchannels are placed on the center of the system, as shown in Fig. 11.1 (right). Because the magnetic field gradient (Fig. 11.2) is negligible, we assumed there is no translation force from any non-uniform gradient and that only a torque is generated. LabVIEW is used to generate a constant rotational input at 6 rad/s through two power supplies (one for each axis). The position and orientation of cells are calculated using an image processing algorithm in Matlab. Due to the axial magnetotactic nature of the cells, cells aligned on a magnetic field moving in opposite directions have a phase difference of 180°. The orientation of cells have been modified so all cells aligned to the magnetic field will have a θ value of 0 for better evaluation.

Image
Figure 11.2 Simulation of magnetic field strength of our 2D approximate Helmholtz coil system. (Top) There is a negligible magnetic field gradient across an area of 2 mm, approximately the same size as the field of view of our experiments. These plots represent the field strength for both the x- and y-axes. The uniformity of this field indicates that translation due to a magnetic field gradient is negligible. (Bottom) The direction and magnitude of the magnetic fields are indicated by the red (mid gray in print version) vectors. Vectors near the center are considered uniform for our system. This simulation was obtained using COMSOL Multiphysics. The area between the coils is 6.25 mm × 6.25 mm.

11.3 Results and discussion

11.3.1 Constantly rotating magnetic fields

Cells are steered using magnetic fields. AMT are in a rotating magnetic field of 6 rad/s, seen in Fig. 11.3(A). The difference between the magnetic field orientation and the cell's orientation is plotted in Fig. 11.3(B). Without a magnetic field, the initial swimming trajectories of cells are random. Under these rotating magnetic fields, the cell trajectories are circular for low rotation speeds and complicated, perhaps hypotrochoidal, spiral patterns at high rotation speeds. Cells here were exposed to rotating magnetic fields for 5 min. There is a consistent difference between a cell's orientation and the orientation of the magnetic field. The mean difference is 20.6°, 36.6°, and 53.9° for the cells represented by the red, blue, and green plots, respectively.

Image
Figure 11.3 (A) Three cells in a rotating magnetic field after 5 min. (Inset) Trajectory of red cell (mid gray in print version), clockwise from top left, at t = 1, 5, 10, and 10.5 min. (B) The difference between the magnetic field orientation and the cell orientation is plotted here. The colors correspond to the top figure. The scale bars are 250 μm.

The orientation difference observed here may be attributed to several factors. As T. pyriformis are biological organisms, there will be some variation between each cell, whether it is their speed, frequency of oscillation due to corkscrew motion, or size. Each cell also has a dipole strength which is a function of the magnetization of the particles as well as the amount of internalized magnetite. An AMT with a greater dipole strength or large amount of magnetized magnetite will show a more robust response to an applied magnetic field, aligning itself to the magnetic field faster than other AMT that may not have as high or as much dipole strength or internalized magnetite, respectively. Regardless, we see that the cell still manages to rotate with the same frequency as the rotating magnetic field.

There is also a slight upwards trend in the orientation difference between all the cells. This trend is not consistent for these cells, as they have been swimming prior to this data capture for five minutes while matching the number of rotations and continue to do so for a remainder of 5 min. It is notable, however, that the cells trajectory and orientation difference will change over time. In Fig. 11.3(A, inset), the trajectories of a cell when exposed to magnetic fields (6 rad/s) for 1, 5, and 10 min are shown. The cell also decreased speed, evident from the decrease in radius. This decrease in speed may have resulted from the cell tiring or the slight temperature elevation of the chamber.

11.3.2 Characterization of cell motion during and after removal of rotating fields

Cells were placed in rotating magnetic fields (6 rad/s) for less than 10 s. Afterwards, the magnetic field was switched off, and the swimming of the previously rotating cells observed. Fig. 11.4(A) shows cells swimming in circular trajectories while the magnetic field is on and Fig. 11.4(B) shows cells after the field has been switched off. Circular trajectories varying in shape are observed for six different cells. In Fig. 11.5(A), the black dashed line in the plot represents the orientation of the field. Similar to the previous experiment of extended exposure to magnetic fields, there is a slight lag between the cell's orientation and direction of the magnetic field. The magnetic field is removed at 7.28 s, during which the orientation of the field is 31.3°. The power supplies were turned off to ensure no magnetic field was present. The cells demonstrate typical corkscrew motion along a straight line. For 5 observed cells, the average difference between their orientation and the magnetic field was 11.6°, 46.3°, 46.6°, 25.63°, and 33.8° for the cells indicated by the red, blue, yellow, magenta, and black plots, respectively. When the field was removed, however, all demonstrated straight swimming, relative to their trajectory during rotation.

Image
Figure 11.4 (A) Trajectory of cells swimming under a 6 rad/s rotating magnetic field. (B) The same cells swimming in a straight direction after the rotating magnetic field is removed. Red circles (mid gray in print version) indicate the last position of the cell prior to removing the magnetic field. The scale bar is 500 μm.
Image
Figure 11.5 (A) Cell orientation in a one period. The dashed line is the orientation of the magnetic field. Cells follow the magnetic field closely. The colors here match the cells in Fig. 11.4 except for the dashed black line (represented by yellow trajectory [light gray in print version]). Red circles (mid gray in print version) represent kinks attributed to the cell's corkscrew motion. (B) The difference between the cell's orientation and the orientation of the magnetic field just prior to removal. Cells swim in relatively straight trajectories after removal of the magnetic field. (C) Cell with a high latency. Cells match simulation of cells that poorly follow the magnetic field.

During the experiment, at times a cell would overlap other cells and our image processing was unable to identify each cell. As a result, there are some brief periods where a cell could not be tracked. Outlying data points in Fig. 11.5, such as the blue cell at 6 s, may be attributed to errors during centroid orientation calculations when another cell comes in close proximity or the cell swims over a distorted area (due to floating debris or interference in imaging).

In Fig. 11.5(A), the cell exhibits a constant angular velocity and is able to rotate synchronously with magnetic fields, but there are periodic changes in slope possibly due to the cell's corkscrew swimming motion. The “kinks” for the blue, dashed black/yellow, magenta, and solid black cells during rotation are 2.0, 4.3, 4.2, and 2.4 Hz, respectively. The values for blue, dashed black/yellow, magenta, and solid black cells after the magnetic field is turned off are 2.1, 4.1, 3.8, and 2.7 Hz, respectively. The kinks for one cell are indicated by red circles in Fig. 11.5(A).

Although most cells matched the rotation frequency of the magnetic field, there was one observed case where a cell could not match the frequency, yet still exhibited a distinct influenced trajectory. Fig. 11.5(C) shows a cyan cell which follows the magnetic field periodically. As previously mentioned, T. pyriformis exhibit a corkscrew motion when swimming due to the angled array of cilia along the length of the cell body. The cell appeared to rotate with the field when the direction of change and orientation of the cells oscillation was similar to that of the rotating magnetic field. During this point, it is likely that the cell experiences the greatest torque according to Eq. (11.1). This cell's magnetic moment may not have been as high as that of the other cells, resulting in the unique trajectory. The cell is plotted against a simulation (dashed lines) for cells with various time constants for aligning themselves to the magnetic field. This cell closely follows with simulated cells that exhibit poor response to magnetic fields, indicating the accuracy and potential of our model for swarm control. The cell also turns slightly after the removal of the field. This can be attributed to normal cell motion, as the biological nature of cells is inherently random, although rarely observed during experiments. The slight curve to the pink cells motion can also be attributed to the cell's innate swimming behavior, as we have previously observed cells directly from a new culture to swim in slight arcs. The next set of experiments imitated the low magnetization of this cell in various frequencies.

11.3.3 Increasing magnetic dipole heterogeneity of cells in a population

All but one cell in the previous experiments had a phase lag of less than 90°. Their departing orientations after the removal of magnetic fields were different but were all within a small range. Ideally, for swarm control, multiple cells should exhibit a large range of heterogeneity in their response rate for a single global input. Understanding how m, the magnetic dipole strength, affects the response rate and phase lag is key.

We know that AMT are able to swim due to the torque caused by the magnetic field. We can also calculate the torque using Eq. (11.1). AMT can be discretely controlled using a global input mainly because of the inhomogeneity of the magnetic dipole strength of each cell. The magnetic dipole strength and the cells response is affected by several factors: (i) the amount of ingested magnetite, (ii) the strength of the permanent magnet used to create these magnetic dipoles, and (iii) the strength of the magnetic field. Factor (i) is difficult to regulate and (iii) cannot increase inhomogeneity of m. A population of AMT will have a similar m, seeded in an iron oxide nanoparticle solution for equal periods and magnetized with the same strength permanent magnet. As a result, higher frequencies would be necessary since lower frequencies would result in similar limit cycles. However, in preliminary experiments, we found that using a rotating magnetic field that is high in frequency, such as 20 Hz, can affect the swimming of the cell after the field is removed (cells do not exhibit corkscrew turning or rotation while swimming, reduction in speed), so for experiments outlined here, we limited the frequency to 3 Hz. Therefore, it is desirable to vary m and increase the inhomogeneity of a population of cells by magnetizing cells with various strength magnets. We previously observed phase lag and a minority of cells unable to match the input frequency of the magnetic field, but in most cases, this can be attributed to a very small amount of ingested iron oxide. Using the method of various magnetization strengths, we can increase the consistency of the heterogeneity of the response rate.

Cells were separated after seeding the culture medium with iron oxide nanoparticles into two separated 1.5 mL volumes (Fig. 11.6). Each volume was magnetized with magnets with difference surface field strengths: 821 and 1601 Gauss. Equal parts from each volume were then placed into a PDMS microchannel. For these cells, they were exposed to a 3 Hz (6π rad/sImage) clockwise rotating field for 5 min, followed by a high/low frequency toggling and then complete removal of a field. Fig. 11.7 illustrates the trajectory of two cells, each from the two discretely magnetized volumes of cells over a period of 28.37 s. From 0–0.67 s, the field frequency was 3 Hz. Afterwards, the field is toggled to 1 Hz (2π rad/sImage). At 18 s, the field was toggled back to 3 Hz and then removed at 24.67 s. Fig. 11.7(A) illustrates the trajectory of the trajectory from 0 to 4 s. The trajectory of the initial 3 Hz field can be recognized by the smaller radius of cell A (thin green trajectory), which has a much stronger magnetic dipole strength than cell B (thick blue trajectory). The small red circles indicate the position of the cells when the field is toggled and the solid circle represents the starting position of the cell. The orientation difference is also plotted in Fig. 11.8(A). In this frequency, cells A and B maintain an average phase lag of 3.94° and 23.06°, respectively. Fig. 11.7(center) shows the trajectory cells after the field is toggled from 1 to 3 Hz. Cell A exhibits a steady phase lag of 27.03°. Cell B exceeds the step-out frequency, when the phase lag increases without bounds, and its trajectory is hypotrochoidal. Cell B's growing phase lag can be seen in Fig. 11.8(B). Cell A maintains a phase lag of 27.03°, compared to 3.94° in a 1 Hz field.

Image
Figure 11.6 Artificially magnetotactic Tetrahymena pyriformis are created by adding iron oxide nanoparticles into culture medium with cells. The cells are left for several minutes to ensure uptake of the iron oxide. Cells are then divided up into two separate volumes. One set of cells is magnetized with a permanent magnet with a surface field strength of 819 Gauss, and the other with a permanent magnet with a surface field strength of 1601 Gauss. Equal parts of each magnetized set of cells are then placed in a microfluidic chamber and into a magnetic field controller for experiments.
Image
Figure 11.7 Trajectory of cells during various frequency toggling. Each pane represents 4 s when the field is switched from (top) 3 to 1 Hz, (center) 1 to 3 Hz, and (bottom) 3 to 0 Hz. Starting positions of cell A (thin green [light gray in print version] line) and cell B (thick blue [dark gray in print version] line) are indicated with solid circles; magnetic field frequency toggling is indicated by hollow red (mid gray in print version) circles. Scale bar is 250 μm.
Image
Figure 11.8 Cells are under a field toggled between 3 and 1 Hz, following the removal of the field. The colors (thickness for grayscale) correspond to the trajectories shown in Fig. 11.7. Field frequency is indicated by the region shading: the lighter region represents a frequency of 3 Hz and the darker region represents a field frequency of 1 Hz. The average orientation difference was 3.94° and 23.06° for the strong (thin green [light gray in print version]) and weakly (thick blue [dark gray in print version]) magnetized cell, respectively. The bottom plot represents the orientation difference between the magnetic field and cells orientation. The strong magnetized cell maintained an average orientation difference of 27.03°. The weak magnetized cell could not keep up with the magnetic field and its orientation difference increased linearly. Inset shows orientation difference of cells and the last direction of the magnetic field after removal of magnetic field.

At 24.67 s, the magnetic field is turned off. When a magnetic field is removed, the cells swim in the direction they were in prior to the field's removal. The inset of Fig. 11.8(B) is the orientation difference between the cell and the last input of the magnetic field after the applied voltage to the controller was 0. The final orientation of the magnetic field was 117°. Cell A maintains an average orientation of 141.47° after the field's removal. This is only a difference of 2.56° between the cells straight swimming orientation and the cell's phase lag during in the 3 Hz rotational field. After removal of the field, cell B originally had a heading of 17.97°. After 3.7 s, its heading is 331.46°, which is an average angular velocity of −12.57°/s. AMT, like normal T. pyriformis, exhibit corkscrew swimming due to the angle of the axial array of motile cilia on its body. Looking at cell B's orientation change between each frame, there seems to be a bias towards counter-clockwise movement, resulting in a net counter-clockwise movement. This may be attributed to minute residual fields from any noise present in the system or nearby ferric objects. This biased swimming, however, is negligible for any future feedback control as cells would be under the influence of a magnetic field more often than not.

11.3.4 Modeling

For modeling we will work with a simplified 2D approach that ignores the effects of gravity and collisions. Both are well documented, and their effects on control strategies warrant further study. Gravity alone would not make the system ensemble controllable, but boundary effects may. Disturbances from robot–robot interactions are also ignored, and may be significant. Extending the model to 3D requires additional states and motion primitives, similar to those used for 2D. Bistable configurations were considered for our model, as they are observed in magnetic helical swimmers and other nanostructures [2830]. In these cases, at high frequencies, a precession angle may form and the magnetic moment is not planar with the rotating fields, and, for our system, would indicate there would be translation in the z-axis as the cell body aligns to the aggregated iron oxide. We have verified in experimental methods that our cells remain planar, and that no precession angles and bistable configurations exist in our system for our range of inputs.

Let the dynamic model for the ith cell shown in Fig. 11.9, with turning time constant aiImage, be

[x˙iy˙iθ˙i]=[vicosθivisinθiMaisin(ψθi)].

Image (11.2)

Here the xiImage and yiImage are Cartesian coordinates, θiImage is the orientation of the cell, ψ is the orientation of the magnetic field, and viImage is the swimming speed of the cell. The cell is pulled to orient along the magnetic field ψ by a magnetic field of magnitude M, and the rate of this alignment is given by the parameter aiImage. We assume the relationship is first order for some range about 0 and thus can be modeled as an ideal torsional spring. As long as the magnetic field is on, in steady-state a large group of magnetized cells will share the same orientation. No steady-state dispersion in orientation is possible when a magnetic field is present. It may be possible to command a change in ψ, quickly turn off the magnetic field, and get a distribution of orientations parameterized by a, but this dispersion will vanish when the magnetic field is replaced. The nonlinear term sin(ψθi)Image is due to the periodicity of the magnetic torque. For small |θψ|Image we can use the small-angle approximation (θψ)Image.

Image
Figure 11.9 Kinematic model of a magnetized T. pyriformis cell. The magnetic field exerts torque Maisin(ψθi)Image to align the cell axis θ with the field ψ.

11.3.4.1 Constantly rotating magnetic field

To make multiple cells controllable by the same magnetic field, we must exploit heterogeneity in turning rate. One method is by using a constantly rotating magnetic field (t)=ftImage, where fR+Image is the frequency of rotation. For f<MaImage the cells will reach a steady-state phase lag as they attempt to align with the field. At steady-state the cells are turning at the same speed as the magnetic field

θ˙i=Maisin(θi(t)ψ(t)),f=Maisin(θi(t)ft),sin1(fMai)=θi(t)ft.

Image (11.3)

This steady-state phase lag is shown in Fig. 11.10. The quantity fMaiImage is the step-out frequency, after which the phase lag grows without bound. This growth is approximately linear for >1.5aImage, as shown in Fig. 11.11. The effective period for the cell is

Ti={2πf,f<Mai,12.9f(Mai)22.3(Mai)1,else.

Image (11.4)

We can also compute the effective radius of the limit cycle the cell follows. For f<aImage, the cell completes a cycle every 2π/fImage seconds and the radius is therefore v/fImage. Past the step-out frequency, the cells turn in periodic orbits similar to the hypotrochoids and epitrochoids produced by a Spirograph toy. Representative limit cycles are shown in Fig. 11.12. The radius of rotation is

ri={vif,f<Mai,1.45f(Mai)20.3(Mai)1,else.

Image

Image
Figure 11.10 A cell modeled by (11.2), under a constantly rotating magnetic field ψ(t)=ft will reach a steady-state phase lag of sin1(fa)Image radians. f = Ma is the step-out frequency, after which the phase lag grows without bound. This growth is approximately linear.
Image
Figure 11.11 As the magnetic field frequency f increases, the radius the cell swims in and the period of rotation decrease in a reciprocal relationship until a, the cutoff frequency. The radius values are erratic from a to 1.5a, but after 1.5a are linear in a2 (a linear-fit line is in dashed grey: r=1.45(fa2)0.3aImage, T=12.9(fa2)2.3aImage). Shown are a=[4,6,8,10]Image.
Image
Figure 11.12 Limit-cycles for 8 cells simulated for 10 s with different values at f = 10 rad/s. MATLAB code available online http://www.tinyurl.com/kx7rdmh.

11.3.4.2 Arbitrary orientations

If we could control the orientation of each cell independently, the cells could swim directly to the goal. Fig. 11.13 shows two cells with different a parameters. If the rotation frequency f and the a values are coprime, the range of possible θ1Image and θ2Image values spans [0,2π]×[0,2π]Image. By increasing f we can control the density we sample these angles. The left side of Fig. 11.13 shows that the time required to span [0,2π]×[0,2π]Image increases with f.

Image
Figure 11.13 Shown are the heading angles for two cells with a={5,7}Image. The x axis is θ1, y axis θ2. (Left) Simulation for 100 s at increasing rotation frequencies f of the external magnetic field. If f and the a values are coprimes, the possible angular values span [0,2π]×[0,2π]Image. (Right) Rotation frequency of the external magnetic field f = 20 rad/s simulated for increasing amounts of time. As time increases, the set of possible angular value pairs becomes dense.

11.3.4.3 Straight-line swimming

By turning the magnetic field off, the cell dynamic model simplifies to

[x˙iy˙iθ˙i]=[vicosθivisinθi0].

Image (11.5)

Without an external magnetic field, the cells swim straight in the direction they were headed when the magnetic field was last on. If we store the orientation of the magnetic field when the magnetic field is turned off at time taImage as ψa=ftaImage, then when we turn the field back on at time tbImage we can resume where we last stopped ψ(t)=ψa+f(ttb)Image and the cells will continue their limit-cycle behavior, but the center of rotation will be translated vi(tbtb)Image along the vector θi(ta)Image.

11.3.4.4 System identification

To choose the optimal frequency of the rotation magnetic field requires knowing the a values for the set of cells we want to control. We employ the method of least squares to determine the aiImage values. First we discretize the continuous plant model (Eq. (11.2))

[xi(k+1)yi(k+1)θi(k+1)]=[viΔTcosθi(k)viΔTsinθi(k)Mαisin(ψ(k)θi(k))]

Image (11.6)

where ΔT is the sampling time and αi=aiΔTImage.

To identify the αiImage parameter for each cell, we record position and orientation measurements under a constantly rotating magnetic field. We record the discrete-time cell orientation information as θi(0)Image, θi(1),,θi(k),Image, θi(n)Image, and the magnetic field orientation as ψ(0)Image, ψ(1),,ψ(k),,ψ(n)Image. The following equation is derived from Eq. (11.6):

[θi(1)θi(0)θi(2)θi(1)θi(k)θi(k1)θi(n)θi(n1)]=[sin(ψ(0)θi(0))sin(ψ(1)θi(1))sin(ψ(k1)θi(k1))sin(ψ(n1)θi(n1))]αi.

Image (11.7)

We rewrite this equation as Y=ΦαiImage. Then, using the method of least squares, the parameter set with the best fit to the data is given by αˆi=ΦYImage, where Φ=(ΦTΦ)1ΦTImage is the pseudoinverse of Φ. The cell's aiImage value is derived as ai=αiΔTImage.

The aiImage value can also be measured directly by inverting (11.3). If the frequency of the rotation magnetic field is below the step-out frequency, the cells turn in a circle with a constant phase lag θi,lagImage. The turning-rate parameter is then ai=f/sin(θi,lag)Image.

11.3.4.5 Swarm control

Once a rotating magnetic field has been removed, cells continue to swim straight, although in slightly different directions. This difference in orientation may be used to control swarms of cells to congregate or steer them to arbitrary positions. Using a combination of rotating and straight swimming (swimming in the presence and absence of a rotating magnetic field), a scenario such as in Fig. 11.14 may be accomplished with many cells. A system can implement a toggling magnetic field to characterize cells and then calculate the most efficient path for goals.

Image
Figure 11.14 A scenario for swarm control using a combination of straight and rotating swimming to direct two cells to the same orbit using a global input. In STRAIGHT-SWIM modes, the center of the cell's rotation changes, and in ORBIT modes, the cell's center remains constant. The heading direction of cells will vary after the movement mode is toggled from ORBIT to STRAIGHT-SWIM. Models of the cell and a feedback algorithm could potentially be implemented in a vision-based tracking system to control two or more cells.

Our control input consists of an alternating sequence of ORBIT and SWIM-STRAIGHT modes. The oscillation frequency f of the magnetic field is constant for every ORBIT mode. At the beginning of each ORBIT mode, the phase of the magnetic oscillation is resumed from the previous ORBIT mode. During the first ORBIT mode, we identify the centers of rotation (xc,i,yc,i)Image of each cell by recording the cell positions for at least one period, calculated by Eq. (11.4), and computing

xc,i(t)=max(xi(tT:t))min(xi(tT:t)),yc,i(t)=max(yi(tT:t))min(yi(tT:t)).

Image (11.8)

The center of rotation of each cell translates along with the cell during each SWIM-STRAIGHT mode (see Fig. 11.14). Control laws were designed from a control-Lyapunov function and investigated in [31].

11.4 Conclusion

In this chapter, we have looked at works which utilized iron oxide nanoparticles to impart a response to magnetic fields in a single cell eukaryote Tetrahymena pyriformis. We characterized the swarming motion of these artificially magnetotactic T. pyriformis in the presence and removal of rotating magnetic fields. We found that each cell's unique magnetic moment and other innate differences result in a phase lag when following a rotating magnetic field. In a constant rotating field, cells demonstrated a relatively even lag behind the applied fields. This phase lag in can also be seen when the magnetic fields are removed: cells swim straightly but in various orientations equal to the last directional input for the magnetic field minus the individual cell's phase lag.

The model we have developed can calculate the magnetic response rates of each cell. This parameter enables us to predict the motion of the cell in a rotating magnetic field that is toggled on and off. In a population with a near-homogeneous magnetic dipole, cells would exhibit very similar phase lags and step-out frequencies, making discrete control of individual cells more difficult and decreasing the controllability of the system. Magnetizing discrete populations of cells with various strength magnets are the best solution to increasing the heterogeneity of the magnetic dipole strength, resulting in greater controllability of cells, as the range of orientations after a magnetic field's removal for two cells is greater. By exploiting rotating and straight swimming, a swarm control method using rotating fields may be implemented to control a swarm of cells, according to the motion models developed above. Various control laws to take advantage of these models can be taken from [31]. Hardware experiments with multiple cells are promising. Discrete control of multiple cells will enable us to perform complex microassembly and micromanipulation tasks such as pushing a single large object or multiple objects simultaneously.

References

[1] A. Ghosh, P. Fischer, Controlled propulsion of artificial magnetic nanostructured propellers, Nano Letters 2009;9(6):2243–2245.

[2] L. Zhang, et al., Artificial bacterial flagella: fabrication and magnetic control, Applied Physics Letters 2009;94(6), 064107.

[3] K.E. Peyer, et al., Magnetic helical micromachines, Chemistry – A European Journal 2012:28–38.

[4] K.E. Peyer, L. Zhang, B.J. Nelson, Bio-inspired magnetic swimming microrobots for biomedical applications, Nanoscale 2013;5(4):1259–1272.

[5] S. Tottori, et al., Magnetic helical micromachines: fabrication, controlled swimming, and cargo transport, Advanced Materials 2012;24(6):811–816.

[6] L. Zhang, K.E. Peyer, B.J. Nelson, Artificial bacterial flagella for micromanipulation, Lab on a Chip 2010;10(17):2203–2215.

[7] R. Dreyfus, et al., Microscopic artificial swimmers, Nature 2005;437(7060):862–865.

[8] L. Zhang, et al., Targeted cargo delivery using a rotating nickel nanowire, Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine 2012;8(7):1074–1080.

[9] D.B. Weibel, et al., Microoxen: microorganisms to move microscale loads, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2005;102(34):11963–11967.

[10] U.K. Cheang, et al., Fabrication and magnetic control of bacteria-inspired robotic microswimmers, Applied Physics Letters 2010;97(21).

[11] M. Kim, et al., Microbiorobotics: Biologically Inspired Microscale Robotic Systems. William Andrew; 2012.

[12] N. Ogawa, et al., A physical model for galvanotaxis of Paramecium cell, Journal of Theoretical Biology 2006;242(2):314–328.

[13] I.D. Brown, J.G. Connolly, G. Kerkut, Galvanotaxic response of Tetrahymena vorax, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Comparative Pharmacology 1981;69(2):281–291.

[14] D.H. Kim, et al., Galvanotactic and phototactic control of Tetrahymena pyriformis as a microfluidic workhorse, Applied Physics Letters 2009;94(16):163901.

[15] L. Köhidai, G. Csaba, Chemotaxis and chemotactic selection induced with cytokines (IL-8, Rantes and TNF-α) in the unicellular Tetrahymena pyriformis, Cytokine 1998;10(7):481–486.

[16] S.-W. Nam, et al., A biological sensor platform using a pneumatic-valve controlled microfluidic device containing Tetrahymena pyriformis, Lab on a Chip 2007;7(5):638–640.

[17] S. Martel, et al., MRI-based medical nanorobotic platform for the control of magnetic nanoparticles and flagellated bacteria for target interventions in human capillaries, The International Journal of Robotics Research 2009;28(9):1169–1182.

[18] S. Martel, et al., Flagellated magnetotactic bacteria as controlled MRI-trackable propulsion and steering systems for medical nanorobots operating in the human microvasculature, The International Journal of Robotics Research 2009;28(4):571–582.

[19] S. Martel, et al., Controlled manipulation and actuation of micro-objects with magnetotactic bacteria, Applied Physics Letters 2006;89(23):233904.

[20] D.P. Lavin, et al., Size effects on the uptake of particles by populations of Tetrahymena pyriformis cells, The Journal of Protozoology 1990;37(3):157–163.

[21] A.W. Mahoney, et al., Behavior of rotating magnetic microrobots above the step-out frequency with application to control of multi-microrobot systems, Applied Physics Letters 2014;104(14).

[22] D.H. Kim, et al., Three-dimensional control of Tetrahymena pyriformis using artificial magnetotaxis, Applied Physics Letters 2012;100(5).

[23] Y. Ou, et al., Motion control of magnetized Tetrahymena pyriformis cells by magnetic field with Model Predictive Control, The International Journal of Robotics Research 2013;32:129–139.

[24] D.H. Kim, et al., Characterization of deciliation-regeneration process of Tetrahymena pyriformis for cellular robot fabrication, Journal of Bionics Engineering 2011;8(3):273–279.

[25] L. Köhidai, G. Csaba, Effects of the mammalian vasoconstrictor the immunocytological detection of endogenous activity, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part C: Pharmacology, Toxicology and Endocrinology 1995;111(2):311–316.

[26] D.H. Kim, et al., Artificial magnetotactic motion control of Tetrahymena pyriformis using ferromagnetic nanoparticles: a tool for fabrication of microbiorobots, Applied Physics Letters 2010;97(17):173702.

[27] B.H. Jo, et al., Three-dimensional micro-channel fabrication in polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) elastomer, Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems 2000;9(1):76–81.

[28] K.I. Morozov, A.M. Leshansky, The chiral magnetic nanomotors, Nanoscale 2014;6(3):1580–1588.

[29] A. Ghosh, et al., Analytical theory and stability analysis of an elongated nanoscale object under external torque, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2013;15(26):10817–10823.

[30] A. Ghosh, et al., Dynamical configurations and bistability of helical nanostructures under external torque, Physical Review E 2012;86(3), 031401.

[31] A. Becker, et al., Feedback control of many magnetized: Tetrahymena pyriformis cells by exploiting phase inhomogeneity, In: 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE; 2013.

[32] P.S.S. Kim, et al., Imparting magnetic dipole heterogeneity to internalized iron oxide nanoparticles for microorganism swarm control, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2015;17(3):1–15.

[33] P.S.S. Kim, et al., Swarm control of cell-based microrobots using a single global magnetic field, In: 2013 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI). IEEE; 2013.

..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
18.188.109.205