NEWS CENTER

新闻中心

奥博资讯

媒体报道

体系论文

首页

The Nobel-Prize-Winning Optogenetics: Heralding the Eve of an Intra-Brain Physics Revolution

发布时间：

2026-10-05

The Nobel-Prize-Winning Optogenetics: Heralding the Eve of an Intra-Brain Physics Revolution

Sun Zuodong

The announcement of the Nobel Prize always stirs widespread public debate each year. This year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to three scientists: Karl Deisseroth from Stanford University, United States; Peter Hegemann from Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany; and Georg Nagel from the University of Würzburg, Germany. The official citation reads: for their discoveries concerning light-gated ion channels and optogenetics.

Peter Hegemann was the first to discover channelrhodopsin in green algae, identifying the source of light-controlled molecular switches. Georg Nagel completed in-vitro verification and confirmed that light exposure can regulate ion influx and efflux across cell membranes. Karl Deisseroth introduced this system into the brains of living mammals. He employed genetic techniques to transfer algal proteins into neurons and paired them with intracranial optical fibres to activate and inhibit individual neurons, establishing a complete optogenetic research system.

Many regard optogenetics as a major therapy for conquering brain disorders. From my perspective, we should view it rationally: optogenetics is an excellent laboratory research tool, yet only one of many physical modulation approaches and should not be excessively glorified.

Its underlying logic is to deliver exogenous light-sensitive proteins into neurons and then modulate nerve cells by delivering light through optical fibres. Light is a form of electromagnetic wave. This year’s Nobel Prize effectively provides global-level confirmation that physical signals can act on neuronal cell membranes and open ion channels. Conceptual clarification is required here: sound is essentially mechanical vibration, and heat is light within the infrared band. The commonly mentioned categories of light, sound, electricity, magnetism, force and heat are not six fully independent entities; they are merely popular simplifications for public understanding. Physical stimuli including electricity, magnetism, mechanical force and electromagnetic radiation (covering visible light and infrared heat) can all trigger ion-channel gating and modulate neuronal excitation and quiescence.

One key physiological fact: external stimuli such as light, mechanical force and sound waves produce indirect modulation. They must ultimately be converted into electrical signals on cell membranes to trigger voltage-gated ion channels before neurons can generate responses. All physical stimuli must ultimately translate into electrical-signal events. If light can achieve modulation, then electricity, magnetism, mechanical force and heat are essentially physical means to interfere with ion channels. Light acts merely as a carrier, and bioelectricity remains the functional final link. This constitutes the core footing of bioelectrogenetics: neuronal activity is fundamentally a bioelectric phenomenon, and ion channels form the material basis for bioelectrical activity. At the heart of ion-channel function lies the switching mechanism governing ion movement across cell membranes. Without clarifying how potassium channels, these core switches, open and close, any research on neuronal modulation will remain confined to superficial phenomena.

This raises a thought-provoking question: normal mammalian neurons do not rely on light to open and close potassium channels. Under native conditions, potassium channels repeatedly open and close spontaneously even without light input. What drives this behaviour? It is the potassium channel origami windmill model and the DNA tetramer model we have proposed. Potassium channels on cell membranes function like four-bladed windmills; tetramers rotate cooperatively to control transmembrane potassium-ion flow and spontaneously generate and sustain neuronal bioelectrical activity.

Optogenetics uses exogenous light-sensitive proteins derived from marine algae. In their natural habitat, ambient light drives these foreign proteins to serve as ion switches. Yet directly transplanting this mechanism into the mammalian brain is logically crude. No natural light exists inside the human brain. To activate these foreign proteins, optical fibres have to be surgically implanted to artificially deliver light. This is not the brain’s native mode of operation. The “windmill blades” of native potassium channels require no light drive; they rotate cooperatively and switch autonomously powered by the electrochemical driving force of ions themselves. Optogenetics is analogous to a lock that already has its original matching key. Researchers instead drill an extra hole and force open the lock cylinder with external brute force. Though it can produce temporary switching effects, it does not correspond to the native cellular working mechanism.

The human brain contains tens of billions of neurons. Theoretically, massive numbers of optical fibres would need to be implanted to realise large-scale modulation of brain function via optogenetics, which is practically unfeasible for clinical application.

Treatment of human brain disorders has long relied on pharmaceutical agents. For many severe brain diseases, however, drugs can hardly resolve root-causes. Given the limitations of pharmacotherapy, much academic research has shifted toward strategies such as gene editing and exogenous-protein delivery. Nevertheless, such approaches face insurmountable barriers including gene-delivery challenges, immune rejection and long-term safety risks. By contrast, light, sound, electricity, magnetism, mechanical force and heat are simply different forms of physical modulation. They herald the eve of an intra-brain physics revolution: instead of drugs or forced genetic modification of cells, external physical signals can directly modulate the activity of native neuronal ion channels, aligning with the theoretical direction of bioelectrogenetics.

Based on how neurons respond to electrical signals, brain pacemakers fall into two major categories: invasive (internally implanted) brain pacemakers and non-invasive (external) brain pacemakers. Both represent directions worthy of continuous exploration for clinical treatment of severe brain disorders. Invasive brain pacemakers require surgical implantation of electrodes; non-invasive brain pacemakers need no craniotomy or implanted electrodes. External electric fields and electromagnetic waves act on brain tissue to directly interfere with intrinsic neuronal bioelectrical activity and regulate transmembrane potassium-ion flow.

Different physical methods each have strengths and weaknesses. By comparison, electromagnetic-wave and electric-field modulation possess inherent advantages. Optogenetics scarcely works for blind people lacking visual input or deaf people lacking auditory input. Electric fields and electromagnetic waves, however, can act directly on neural pathways to reactivate auditory and visual nerves, bypassing damaged sensory receptors. Electromagnetic waves can diffusely penetrate brain tissue, requiring no genetic modification, no implantation of foreign proteins and no craniotomy for fibre placement.

To exert effects on deep brain regions with light, numerous intracranial optical fibres must be implanted. Brain tissue exhibits poor light transmittance and limited diffusion capacity, which constitutes an unavoidable shortcoming. Ultrasound is a mechanical-force stimulus. Although it can penetrate tissue non-invasively, it carries potential risks of generating micro-debris that may block distal microvessels. Thermal stimulation tends to cause local tissue burns; sound-wave mechanical vibration exerts weak influence and can hardly modulate deep-seated nerves with precision.

Years ago, I encountered a foot-electrical-stimulation product built around an electrical-stimulus pedal. Its developers nonetheless designed special slippers and electrified induction carpets with added coil structures for fancy packaging. Seemingly innovative, this was essentially taking a roundabout approach, driving up costs and hindering real-world deployment. Optogenetics follows similar logic and amounts to excessive technical packaging. It can artificially toggle ion-channel switches, yet it cannot explain how the native “windmill” of mammalian potassium channels rotates cooperatively in light-free environments.

Nobel Prize juries have historically favoured new tools and research techniques rather than prioritising mature, widely accessible clinical solutions. In traditional Chinese medical texts, Ge Hong documented pounding fresh artemisia to treat malaria, a practice proven effective. From the perspective of modern medical standardisation, patients cannot simply drink pounded artemisia juice as standard therapy. Isolating monomeric active compounds delivers stable efficacy and controllable dosage, representing the modern pathway for medical standardisation. This nevertheless gives rise to a noteworthy observation: many natural substances possess intrinsic physiological activity. Pursuit of standardisation drives repeated purification and monomer separation, a process intertwined with industry-driven commercial packaging. Consider vitamin supplementation: fresh fruits and vegetables normally satisfy human nutritional requirements, and purified supplements are not strictly necessary. The same applies to natural medicinal materials such as ginseng. We must distinguish between the value of scientific standardisation and excessive commercial packaging.

That said, optogenetics should not be entirely dismissed. In laboratory settings, it enables precise labelling and observation of individual neurons and dissection of brain circuits, and its value as a research tool is undisputed. Still, if the public expects this technology to soon cure Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease, such expectations are overstated. Safety risks stemming from gene delivery, intracranial optical-fibre implantation and exogenous proteins can hardly be adequately resolved in the short term.

This year’s Nobel Prize in fact validates the underlying logic of bioelectrogenetics: physical signals can modulate neural ion channels and in turn neuronal bioelectricity. Light is merely one subset among such physical signals. Ultimately, bioelectricity is the underlying language of neural activity; the cooperative rotational-switch mechanism of potassium-channel tetramers serves as the grammar for this underlying language. Scientific evaluation should focus not merely on flashy technical packaging but also on whether a solution is simple, safe and broadly accessible, and whether it can genuinely relieve patient suffering. Truly great scientific breakthroughs often follow the principle that great truths are simple. The Nobel Prize honours an outstanding research tool, yet broadly accessible therapeutic solutions for brain disorders still await further exploration.