Why does the bacteria tumble more in negative chemotaxis, if it's still just trying to travel in a specific (away) direction, just like in positive (towards) chemotaxis? I would expect in both cases to have them do less tumbling and more running, so that they either get to the attractant or away from the repellent.
I also got the same idea, but I considered that the speed of the bacteria would be "normal" without any repellants. When a repellant is present, it acts like a barrier that allows the bacteria to tumble more by an elicited conformational change that induces autophosphorylation of CheA. Hence, when it is on the path of decreasing repellant concentration, its speed reverts to normal, which is not really faster than when in contact with an attractant. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks!
This was incredibly good! It all makes sense to me now, thank you!
Thank you so much.... this was very helpful for mine presentation 😌 because of this I got all the concepts very clear..
Just beutiful......
Why does the bacteria tumble more in negative chemotaxis, if it's still just trying to travel in a specific (away) direction, just like in positive (towards) chemotaxis? I would expect in both cases to have them do less tumbling and more running, so that they either get to the attractant or away from the repellent.
I also got the same idea, but I considered that the speed of the bacteria would be "normal" without any repellants. When a repellant is present, it acts like a barrier that allows the bacteria to tumble more by an elicited conformational change that induces autophosphorylation of CheA. Hence, when it is on the path of decreasing repellant concentration, its speed reverts to normal, which is not really faster than when in contact with an attractant. Correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks!
Thank you ma'am