Interactive channel models · molecular communication

Internet of Algae Lab

Algae colonies are nature's own molecular network. This page turns the end-to-end channel models of Akyildiz et al. into live simulations: press Start to watch molecules, voltage pulses and photons travel from a transmitting cell to a receiving cell, and explore how distance, diffusion, wind, and receiver biology shape attenuation, delay — and, in a teaching extension, bit error rate.

Reference I. F. Akyildiz, S. H. Sayin, E. I. Saygili, and B. D. Unluturk, “The Internet of Algae: End-to-End Communication-Theoretic Models for Photosynthetic Molecular Networks,” IEEE Trans. Mol. Biol. Multi-Scale Commun., vol. 12, pp. 796–816, 2026. doi:10.1109/TMBMC.2026.3711050

Quorum-Sensing Chemical Channel

A dense algae population releases signaling molecules (CSSF) into the water. They spread by pure diffusion and degrade on the way; a receiving cell responds by swimming faster once the local concentration crosses a threshold. Range: millimeters. Latency: hours — this is the slowest channel of the four.

Model equations (paper §IV)
\[ \frac{dN}{dt}=\mu N\Bigl(1-\frac{N}{K}\Bigr) \qquad \frac{\partial C}{\partial t}=D\,\nabla^{2}C+\alpha N-\delta C \qquad v(t)=v_0+v_{\max}\,\frac{C_{\mathrm{RX}}-C_{\mathrm{th}}}{K_m+C_{\mathrm{RX}}} \;\; \bigl(C_{\mathrm{RX}}\ge C_{\mathrm{th}}\bigr) \]

Cell density N(t) grows logistically; molecules diffuse (coefficient \(D\)) and are lost at rate \(\delta = 1/\tau_{\mathrm{loss}}\). The receiver maps concentration to swimming speed through a thresholded Michaelis–Menten nonlinearity. Channel-only attenuation \(A_C(d)\) compares peak concentration at the receiver vs. the transmitter; end-to-end metrics are defined on the decoded swimming speed. Table I supplies the physical parameters; the unreported initial population and boundary-source convention are calibrated to reproduce Figs. 5–8 and documented under About & Citation.

Parameters

Digital link extension — not in paper

On–off keying over the peak-concentration amplitude with additive Gaussian noise; \(\mathrm{BER}=Q\!\left(A/2\sigma\right)\). The paper's models are deliberately deterministic — this noise layer is added for teaching.

Live channel molecules diffusing from TX colony to RX cell

t = 0.0 h

Each dot is a signaling molecule performing the random walk behind the diffusion equation; dots fade out as molecules degrade \((\tau_{\mathrm{loss}})\). The RX cell's tail beats faster once enough molecules accumulate. Particle view is a stochastic visualization of the same physics; the curves below are the paper's deterministic model.

Molecules emitted
0
Reached RX
0
RX swim speed
15 µm/s
Channel att. \(A_C(d)\)
Channel delay \(\tau_C(d)\)
Peak-time \(\tau_C^{\mathrm{peak}}(d)\)
BER @ d (ext.)

Attenuation vs distance

channel-only \(A_C(d)\)end-to-end \(A_v(d)\)

Delay vs distance 50% rise

channel \(\tau_C(d)\)end-to-end \(\tau_v(d)\)peak-time \(\tau_C^{\mathrm{peak}}(d)\)

Bit error rate vs distance extension

BER, OOK + Gaussian noise

Volatile Organic Compound Channel

Stressed algae release volatile compounds that escape into the air above the water and ride the wind — an advection–diffusion channel with chemical decay. Range jumps to meters or kilometers; delay drops to seconds–minutes. The receiver decodes by ligand–receptor binding.

Model equations (paper §V)
\[ h_{\mathrm{ch}}(t;d)=\frac{M_0}{\sqrt{4\pi D t}}\,\exp\!\Bigl(-\frac{(d-vt)^{2}}{4Dt}\Bigr)\,e^{-\lambda t} \qquad \frac{dR_b}{dt}=k_{\mathrm{on}}\,C(d,t)\,\bigl(R_T-R_b\bigr)-k_{\mathrm{off}}\,R_b \]

An impulse of \(M_0\) molecules released at the surface propagates by wind advection (speed \(v\)) plus diffusion in\n air, decaying at rate \(\lambda\). Receptor binding at the receiver adds its own latency: the end-to-end peak arrives later than the airborne concentration peak. Parameters follow Table II of the paper. Because the paper does not report (M_0) in concentration units, the figure-calibrated reference concentration is documented under About & Citation.

Parameters

Digital link extension — not in paper

OOK over the normalized airborne channel amplitude, \(\mathrm{BER}=Q\!\left(A/2\sigma\right)\). Teaching extension; the reference models are deterministic.

Live channel plume drifting downwind over the water surface

t = 0.0 s

Molecules leave the emitting patch (left), drift with the wind and diffuse in air, and decay. The receiving patch (right) counts arrivals and its receptor-occupancy bar fills according to the binding kinetics. Curves below are computed from the closed-form Green's function of the paper.

Molecules emitted
0
Reached RX
0
Receptor occupancy
0%
Channel att. \(\alpha_{\mathrm{ch}}(d)\)
Peak delay \(\tau_{\mathrm{ch}}(d)\)
BER @ d (ext.)

Attenuation vs distance ref. \(d = 0.5\) m

channel \(\alpha_{\mathrm{ch}}(d)\)end-to-end \(\alpha_{\mathrm{e2e}}(d)\)

Delay vs distance peak arrival

channel \(\tau_{\mathrm{ch}}(d)\)end-to-end \(\tau_{\mathrm{e2e}}(d)\)

Bit error rate vs distance extension

BER, OOK + Gaussian noise

Multi-species encoding paper §V-A, Eqs. (13)–(21)

The stimulus vector \(\sigma(t)=(\sigma_s,\sigma_\ell,\sigma_n)\) drives an \(N\)-species emission vector through \(s_i=a_{i,s}\sigma_s+a_{i,\ell}\sigma_\ell+a_{i,n}\sigma_n\); each compound crosses the air channel with its own \(D_i,\lambda_i\) and binds with its own \(k_{\mathrm{on},i}\), giving the bound-receptor vector \(R_b(t)\). The bars are that codeword — this is the “massive molecular shift keying” the paper points to. The paper tabulates no values for this block and plots no figure for it; the coupling matrix and the per-species spread around Table II are documented reconstructions, not reproductions.

Dominant VOC
Peak occupancy \(\max_i R_{b,i}/R_T\)
Decision \(y=u(R_{b,i^*}-\gamma)\)

Electrical Cable Channel

Macroalgae branches conduct action-potential-like voltage pulses, modeled with the same cable equation that describes nerve fibers. Centimeter-to-meter range with millisecond-to-second latency — the colony's rapid response line. The receiver is a voltage-gated channel with a sigmoidal open probability.

Model equations (paper §VI)
\[ \tau_m\frac{\partial V}{\partial t}=\lambda^{2}\frac{\partial^{2}V}{\partial x^{2}}-V \qquad V(0,t)=A_0\exp\!\Bigl(-\frac{(t-t_0)^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}}\Bigr) \qquad P_o=\frac{1}{1+e^{-(V-V_{1/2})/k}} \]

The reduced cable equation with space constant \(\lambda\) and membrane time constant \(\tau_m\); a Gaussian voltage pulse is\n injected at \(x = 0\) and a sealed end is imposed at the branch tip. The receiver converts the arriving voltage into a gate open probability. Parameters follow Table III of the paper. Solved here live by finite differences. The transmitter selector switches between Eq. (40)'s Gaussian pulse — the approximation the paper adopts for its own numerics — and the explicit ion-channel encoding of Eqs. (28)–(29), \(g_i(t)=g_0+\Delta g\,f_{\mathrm{stim}}(t)\), \(C_m\dot V_m=-\sum_i g_i (V_m-E_i)\). Setting \(M>1\) adds the branch junction of §VI-A-3: voltage continuity plus axial-current conservation, \(V_J=(V_{J-1}+M\,V_{J+1})/(1+M)\) for equal-diameter daughters.

Parameters

Transmitter model
Daughter branches at junction \(M\)

\(\Delta g\) acts only in the ion-channel mode, and \(x_J\) only when \(M>1\). The paper tabulates no conductances, reversal potentials, \(C_m\) or branch geometry, so these two blocks are normalized reconstructions of Eqs. (28)–(29) and of the junction conditions in §VI-A-3 — see About & Citation.

Digital link extension — not in paper

OOK over the peak received voltage, \(\mathrm{BER}=Q\!\left(A/2\sigma\right)\). Teaching extension.

Live channel voltage pulse traveling along a branch

t = 0 ms

Top: the branch, colored by instantaneous membrane voltage \(V(x,t)\) from a live finite-difference solution of the cable equation. Bottom: the voltage waveform arriving at the receiver (marker) and the gate open probability \(P_o\) it produces.

\(V\) at RX (now)
0.00
Gate open \(P_o\)
0%
Channel att. \(A_V(d)\)
Channel delay \(\tau_V(d)\)
Peak-time \(\tau_V^{\mathrm{peak}}(d)\)
E2E delay \(\tau_P(d)\)
BER @ d (ext.)

Attenuation vs distance

channel \(A_V(d)\)end-to-end \(A_P(d)\)

Delay vs distance 50% rise

channel \(\tau_V(d)\)end-to-end \(\tau_P(d)\)peak-time \(\tau_V^{\mathrm{peak}}(d)\)

Bit error rate vs distance extension

BER, OOK + Gaussian noise

Optical Bioluminescent Channel

Bioluminescent flashes at 470 nm propagate through water with geometric spreading plus Beer–Lambert extinction. The numerical model gives roughly 0.15–0.25 s latency, set by the flash waveform and the photoreceptor, not by the water; propagation itself is effectively instantaneous at these ranges. The colony's urgent-alert channel.

Model equations (paper §VII)
\[ A_{\mathrm{ch}}(d)=\frac{A_r}{4\pi d^{2}}\,e^{-(a+b)d} \qquad f(t)=\bigl(1-e^{-t/\tau_r}\bigr)e^{-t/\tau_d} \qquad \tau_{\mathrm{rec}}\frac{dS}{dt}=-S+S_0+S_{\max}\frac{R}{K_R+R} \]

The channel gain is closed-form: inverse-square spreading times exponential extinction (\(a\): absorption, \(b\):\n scattering — Petzold water types). The emitted flash has rise/decay constants \(\tau_r\), \(\tau_d\); the photoreceptor integrates with a saturating Hill nonlinearity, which buffers tens of dB of channel loss down to a few percent of end-to-end loss. Table IV supplies the physical parameters. The emitted signal is the flash train of Eq. (42), \(I_{\mathrm{tx}}(t)=\sum_i A(\sigma_i) f(t-t_i)\), with amplitudes spanning Table IV's \([1.0,1.1]\); the train's count and spacing are controls because the paper tabulates neither. \(\tau_I\) and \(\tau_S\) both use the paper's stated \(\rho=0.5\). Figure 22 is still evaluated on the quasi-steady Hill response rather than the finite-time relaxation peak — see About & Citation.

Parameters

Water type (Petzold)

Digital link extension — not in paper

OOK over received optical power with additive Gaussian noise of std σ (same units as the normalized channel gain), \(\mathrm{BER}=Q\!\left(A/2\sigma\right)\). Teaching extension; a physically rigorous treatment would use a Poisson photon-counting channel — see §X-A of the paper.

Live channel photons from a flashing cell to an eyespot

t = 0 ms

The transmitter emits flash trains; each photon travels in a straight line and may be absorbed or scattered out of the path (probability set by the water's extinction coefficient). The eyespot counts surviving photons; the response bar \(S(t)\) shows the decoded photobiological output.

Photons emitted
0
Reached eyespot
0
Response \(S(t)\)
0%
Channel gain (dB)
Channel delay \(\tau_I\)
E2E delay \(\tau_S\)
BER @ d (ext.)

Channel gain vs distance dB, all water types

pure seaclear oceancoastalturbid harbor

End-to-end attenuation \(A_S(d)\) paper equation vs. figure reconstruction

Eq. (53), dynamic \(S(t)\)Fig. 22 reconstruction, quasi-steady

Delay vs distance 50% rise, \(\rho=0.5\)

channel \(\tau_I(d)\)end-to-end \(\tau_S(d)\) — flat because the photoreceptor runs saturated

Bit error rate vs distance extension

BER, OOK + Gaussian noise

Four Channels, One Colony

No single modality wins everywhere. The four channels occupy complementary niches in the range–latency plane — a natural multi-layer signaling architecture (paper §VIII, Table V).

Range–latency map

Log–log operating regions from the comparative analysis. The optical box uses the 153–254 ms numerical delays in Figs. 21 and 23; Table V gives the broader qualitative label µs–ms. Energy cost per signaling event rises toward the optical channel.

Comparative summary Table V of the paper

ModalityRangeLatencyEnergy costPrimary function
Quorum sensingmm – cmmin – hoursLowLocal coordination
VOCm – kmsec – minMediumEcosystem broadcast
Electricalcm – mms – sMediumRapid response
Opticalcm – m153–254 ms in Figs. 21/23
µs–ms in Table V
HighUrgent alert

About This Page

This is an educational, interactive companion to the reference paper below. All attenuation and delay curves are computed in your browser from the paper's equations, parameter tables (Tables I–IV), and the explicitly documented figure-reproduction conventions below: the diffusion–reaction equation for quorum sensing, the advection–diffusion Green's function for VOCs, the cable equation for electrical signaling, and the Beer–Lambert / Hill-receptor chain for optical signaling. No figures are reproduced from the publication.

What is faithful to the paper: the deterministic channel and receiver equations, the tabulated parameters, and the channel-only vs. end-to-end distinction. For optical attenuation, the primary curve now evaluates Eq. (53) literally using the dynamic response of Eq. (47); a separately labelled quasi-steady curve preserves comparison with Fig. 22. The paper does not tabulate every numerical convention needed to regenerate its figures. To reproduce Figs. 5–8, the QS solver uses \(N(0)=0.003224K\), a 12 mm computational domain, and a 1.47 boundary-cell source weight. For Figs. 12–13, the unreported VOC impulse magnitude is represented by a \(5\times10^{-8}\) M reference concentration. For Figs. 20–23, the absolute emitted irradiance — also unreported — is represented by a single scale of 0.2445, together with a 0.15 s flash start. Everything else in the optical chain follows the paper directly: \(\tau_I\) and \(\tau_S\) use the stated \(\rho=0.5\) of Eqs. (52) and (54), and \(\tau_S(d)\) is integrated from Eq. (47) at every distance, so its flatness is a result of photoreceptor saturation rather than an assumption. These are figure-reproduction conventions inferred from the published plots, not independently measured biological parameters. What is added for teaching: (1) the particle animations are stochastic visualizations of the same transport physics — individual molecules and photons are drawn so the channel becomes visible, and the counters count those simulated particles; (2) the bit-error-rate panels assume on–off keying with additive Gaussian receiver noise, \(\mathrm{BER}=Q\!\left(A/2\sigma\right)\). The paper deliberately leaves noise modeling, SNR and capacity analysis as open problems (§X); the BER layer here is a standard textbook assumption, clearly separated so students can tell model from extension.

Reproduction limitations

  • Blocks the paper specifies but never plots. The multi-species VOC encoder (Eqs. 13–21), the explicit ion-channel transmitter (Eqs. 28–29), and the branch-junction conditions (§VI-A-3) are all implemented here, but the paper tabulates no values for any of them and publishes no figure against which they could be checked. Their parameters are documented reconstructions in the paper's own normalization, and the regression suite pins them by structural invariants only — not by agreement with a curve.
  • Unreported flash train: Eq. (42) is implemented, but the paper tabulates neither the flash count \(N(\sigma)\) nor the emission times \(\{t_i\}\). Both are exposed as controls; the defaults (3 flashes, 300 ms apart, amplitudes spanning Table IV's \([1.0,1.1]\)) are what reproduce the published \(\tau_I\) levels under the paper's own \(\rho=0.5\).
  • Equation (53) and Figure 22 are not numerically interchangeable: the primary \(A_S\) curve uses the finite-time relaxation of Eq. (47) for both transmitter and receiver, exactly as Eq. (53) defines. The second curve uses the quasi-steady Hill peak needed to reproduce Fig. 22. At \(K_R=5\times10^5\) and \(d=5\) m the two are approximately 0.923 and 0.973, respectively. Both share the same irradiance scale; the separation is visible rather than absorbed into a hidden calibration.
  • Unreported absolute irradiance: Eq. (42) gives flash shape and relative amplitude but no absolute \(I_{\mathrm{tx}}\), so the single 0.2445 scale above is identified from Fig. 22.
  • No source plotting data: the authors' original samples and plotting code are unavailable here, so the simulation claims agreement within plot-reading tolerance, not point-by-point identity with the source data.
  • Digitization uncertainty: reference values were read from the rasterized PDF figures. Regression tolerances reflect the visible curve thickness and roughly half a minor grid interval where applicable.

Reference

I. F. Akyildiz, S. H. Sayin, E. I. Saygili, and B. D. Unluturk, “The Internet of Algae: End-to-End Communication-Theoretic Models for Photosynthetic Molecular Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Molecular, Biological, and Multi-Scale Communications, vol. 12, pp. 796–816, 2026, doi: 10.1109/TMBMC.2026.3711050.