## 3 Results and Discussion
### NLR-M2 Results
Therefore, when fitting the 0.02 Hz Re\(M_{2}\) signals, we assumed a two-mode distribution of magnetic moments. It should be noted that the use of a single-mode model, even with the size dispersion, yields a much worse fit convergence, with a much larger chi-square. The synthesis of magnetosomes and their chains in MTB is genetically controlled [1; 2; 3; 42; 43; 1; 5; 42], which suggests identity of their magnetic moments. The attempt to fit the first, larger-moment (\"heavy\"), mode with the dispersed moment distribution resulted, as a rule, in much worse fit quality. At the same time, it can be assumed that the second (\"light\"), mode, corresponding to a smaller average moment of the magnetic centers, can have a distribution in sizes and, accordingly, in magnetic moments. However, its account for the second mode does not yield regularly better chi-squares, and the moment distribution cannot be specified, due to the strong correlation between the fit parameters. The fit curves for the experimental data are presented in panels (c) and (f) of Figures 3-6. The contribution of the \"heavy\" fraction (red line) to the response is concentrated mainly in the weak-field region, while the contribution of the \"light\" fraction (green line) extends over the entire measured field region. Specifically, the rapid rise of the signal at low fields comes from the former, while the \"tail\" of the signal is formed by the latter. The obtained parameters, viz., the saturation magnetization, the number of magnetic centers responsible for the signal, and the magnetic moment of the center, are shown in Table 1 for all the strains, each measured both as-prepared and after one year of storage. The anisotropy energies were also obtained from the data processing. However, their values seem to be controversial and not sufficiently reliable to be presented. At the moment, we provide only estimation of the order of their magnitude, \(E_{a}\)\(\sim\)10\({}^{3}\) K. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Culture**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**“Heavy” Fraction**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**“Light” Fraction**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \(\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}\) (\(\mathbf{10^{-10}\ \mathrm{A}\cdot\mathbf{m}^{2}}\)) & \(N_{\mathbf{P}}\) (\(\mathbf{10^{8}}\)) & \(\mathbf{M_{C}}\) (\(\mathbf{10^{5}\ \mathrm{\mu_{B}}}\)) & \(\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}\) (\(\mathbf{10^{-8}\ A\cdot\mathbf{m}^{2}}\)) & \(N_{\mathbf{P}}\) (\(\mathbf{10^{10}}\)) & \(\mathbf{M_{C}}\) (\(\mathbf{10^{5}\ \mathrm{\mu_{B}}}\)) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{BB-1} & old & 8.60 (46) & 4.45 (28) & 2.08 (7) & 4.19 (29) & 15.6 (1.3) & 0.289 (13) \\  & new & 5.9 (1.8) & 6.3 (2.2) & 1.01 (18) & 1.8 (4.4) & 14 (41) & 0.14 (21) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{MSR-1} & old & 12.5 (7) & 9.6 (6) & 1.394 (46) & 2.45 (14) & 7.4 (5) & 0.357 (14) \\  & new & 1.176 (48) & 0.596 (29) & 2.128 (53) & 0.3069 (45) & 0.670 (11) & 0.4936 (41) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{LBB-42} & old & 3.14 (37) & 1.79 (24) & 1.89 (12) & 0.55 (6) & 1.63 (22) & 0.366 (28) \\  & new & 3.25 (9) & 2.47 (8) & 1.421 (23) & 0.576 (10) & 2.124 (42) & 0.2926 (27) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{AMB-1} & old & 3.91 (33) & 3.03 (29) & 1.39 (7) & 0.94 (11) & 4.3 (6) & 0.235 (13) \\  & new & 3.1 (7) & 2.3 (6) & 1.46 (18) & 0.6 (5) & 2.9 (3.0) & 0.23 (13) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SP-1} & old & 0.50 (15) & 0.15 (1.5) & 3.5 (34) & 0.2039 (38) & 0.251 (5) & 0.875 (10) \\  & new & 1.65 (39) & 0.87 (23) & 2.04 (25) & 0.344 (24) & 0.79 (7) & 0.467 (27) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{SO-1} & old & 0.292 (25) & 0.082 (8) & 3.84 (20) & 0.297 (11) & 1.105 (46) & 0.290 (6) \\  & new & 9 (11) & 12 (3000) & 0 (200) & 0 (0.18) & 0 (3.9) & 0.05 (37) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Magnetosome parameters obtained by fitting NLR-M2 experimental data from _Magnetospirilum_ strains recorded at \(H\)-field scan frequency 0.02 Hz.