The Birth of Optogenetics

Dr. Tom writes "Scientists at MIT and other labs have created transgenic neurons that fire when exposed to light. The technique targets specific cell types in live primates. They are already talking about the possibilities for therapy and behavior modification by optically stimulating specific brain circuits."

Comments

As much Deisseroth at Stanford as Boyden at MIT

[njvack]

The summary is a bit remiss in not mentioning Karl Deisseroth's group at Stanford, who have really made this technique practical. I'm at a different (also good) neuroscience lab, and his group's work looks like magic to me -- they've crossed a lot of t's and dotted a lot of i's. It's really, really elegant, and has a lot of therapeutic potential in humans.

They've made a great video showing optical control of a mouse's motor cortex, and the lab's main optogenetics page has some publications.

Re:As much Deisseroth at Stanford as Boyden at MIT

[macwhizkid]

Article does mention Karl Deisseroth, just mainly by first name. But yes, Deisseroth's research group pioneered most of this research, which truly is spectacularly cool.

Here's a Wired article from last year that explains optogenetics in prose more familiar to the average Slashdot user. And a YouTube video of Deisseroth giving an overview of his work.

I've been lucky enough to see Deisseroth speak a couple of times (always in a packed auditorium). The pace at which he displays his results and the value of the results themselves is almost mind-boggling. He'll talk about a really great result they got with an experiment inhibiting fear in mice (if I recall, they targeted the amygdala and then showed the animal hiding in corners of the cage until they turn on the laser and he runs across the open space) and then before you can wrap your brain around it he's already moved on to talking about revolutionizing Parkinson's research by selectively inhibiting dopaminergic neurons.

As if inventing a groundbreaking technique and using it to solve all kinds of interesting problems isn't enough, Deisseroth has also been very proactive about sharing his techniques and methods, to the point that his lab actually holds workshops for other neuroscientists to learn how to do similar work. A pretty awesome guy all around, and I suspect he'll be the recipient of a Nobel Prize before too long.

Re:Science for the sake of science can be dangerou

[sadness203]

A retrovirus is made to "attack" the DNA of a cell. A neuron is not made for that, it can't inject new DNA to other cells.

Plus, a neuron don't divide as other cells do. Well, it happen for specific type of neuron, but it mostly stem cells. So most of them don't divide, and if they do, they will divide as the same cell, with the same DNA markers.

You should try real science, instead of trying to scares people with random Hollywood scenarios.