|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Text and/or other creative content from this version of Optogenetics was copied or moved into Life sciences with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.|
- 1 NPR
- 2 Intact animals
- 3 Neurophysiology vs. Neuropsychology
- 4 Assessment for WikiProject Neuroscience
- 5 History of Optogenetics
- 6 History issue
- 7 Optogenetics movies
- 8 Description
- 9 Error in description of Tecuapetla et al. (2010)
- 10 In the news
- 11 Expanding subsections on Applications
- 12 Further Expansions
- 13 Peer Edit
- 14 Peer Edit
npr-talk of the nation, 16 Oct. 2010 has a discussion with the leading experimenter in the field working on fruit flies.
"This emerging repertoire of optogenetic probes now allows cell-type-specific and temporally precise control of multiple axes of neural function within intact animals". I'm not sure the phrase intact animals is accurate. after all, in order to project light on the receptors introduced into the animal's brain, parts of the skull have to be removed (and if you're doing it deeper than 0.5mm into the brain, an optic fiber has to be inserted into the brain). I would use the phrase behaving animals. OfriRaviv (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Neurophysiology vs. Neuropsychology
I'm thinking that the topic to be labeled in this article would be neurophysiology rather than neuropsychology? Optogenetics seems to have much more directly to do with physiology than psychology. Doesn't neuropshychology work by means of neurophysiology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Assessment for WikiProject Neuroscience
Following a suggestion on the project page, I am assessing this article. Although there is a lot of referenced material here, I consider it only Start class because there is hardly anything in the article to tell a reader what the method is and how it works. Looie496 (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
History of Optogenetics
- Wow thats a really cool article. Can you create a history page, maybe citing a few more articles? Dont know if they will let you post it because your not signed in, but if you post it on this page someone will do it.Millertime246 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The history section of the Optogenetics article states: "An early use of light to activate neurons was carried out by Richard Fork and later Rafael Yuste, who demonstrated laser activation of neurons within intact tissue, although not in a genetically-targeted manner." It may not be accurate to describe the Yuste result as experiments in an intact tissue. The experiments were done in living brain slices. This is a slab of tissue removed from the brain and therefore not really intact. At any rate, those experiments using two-photon uncaging of caged glutamate to photoactivate neurons were preceded by experiments using essentially the same approach - glutamate uncaging - conducted 14 years earlier by Callaway and Katz. E M Callaway and L C Katz. Photostimulation using caged glutamate reveals functional circuitry in living brain slices. PNAS 1993 90 (16) 7661-7665. This photostimulation approach has been used extensively since 1993 to probe connections in the brain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
There are two movies in the Wikimedia Commons which illustrate optogenetic tools and subsequent behavioral responses for C. elegans, and I would like to include the movies in the main article. Any comments on this?
- If they are accompanied by a proper explanation, maybe. Just looking at them I have no idea what is going on. Looie496 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
There needs to be an introductory paragraph in this section that explains what optogenetics is, and does. I surmise that it inhibits or induces the firing of neurons, or groups of neurons that have been identified or selected in some way, genetically. I also surmise that the previous sentence is wrong, and a correct paragraph needs to start this section. JFistere (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Error in description of Tecuapetla et al. (2010)
The Wikipedia article talks about "cholinergic" synapses in nucleus accumbens, but the Tecuapetla et al. paper is about glutamatergic synapses, not cholinergic ones. Laura.Freberg (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
In the news
Headline-1: Scientists have built an 'off switch' for the brain
Expanding subsections on Applications
I was planning on expanding on some of the current subsections under Applications, and I have a couple sources from which I will be attaining my information. I would appreciate any tips or critiques on my choice of sources.
In addition, I would like to change the section title of Atrial Fibrilation to Cardiovascular as there are few sources for the former. Finally, the current subtitle perturbs the flow of the section Applications due to the subtitles pertaining to structures rather than specific diseasesPizzaman1995 (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC).
I am currently working on adding to the article a section to try to explain how does optogenetics get introduced into the animal species and how researchers then manipulate this targeted area. I believe the article currently has some basic details on how optogenetics is used and what are its main constituents, but it appears to lack a section on how do all the separate constituents (i.e transgenic mice, optical neural interfaces, Cre-recombinase, promoters, and opsins) come together to create this methodology.
In addition to adding a basic process as to how it all comes together, I plan on adding a section on some of the variety of tools currently at the disposal of researchers to use on the transgenic mice. More importantly, I want to describe the techniques researchers use in trying to better focus in on their area of interest.
Finally, I plan to add a small section on some of the downfalls or areas in which optogenetics is still improving upon.
Here are my sources from which I will be gathering my information:
Dear fellow Wiki Editor. I really enjoyed reading your article on optogenetics and was impressed at the amount of editing you must have done since this topic is pretty difficult and the technique relatively new. Before choosing to peer review this article I had no idea what optogenetics was let alone how important its implications were. Thanks to your contributions I now have a better understanding of what optogenetics is.
A few recommendations in regards to the structure of the article is that I would recommend trying to expand on the introduction section with a little more background information on optogenetics and its general uses in science. I also would recommend you possibly adding a couple of reasons and specific benefits for using optogenetics in the same paragraph. In regards to the last two paragraphs (Description and Technique), I think you can somehow combine these two paragraphs into one cohesive section labeled (technique/method?) so that it makes it more clear and allows for more flow in the transition from the history of optogenetics to its uses/techniques. Other than those mentioned the article looks great and again very happy to have been able to read such a fascinating topic. Rehman94 (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Rehman94
I really appreciate the content you added, especially regarding the methodology of optogenetics. It clarifies the article and answers several questions I had regarding optogenetics. The content is clearly organized and explained which helps the reader understand a rather technical process. However, I feel the content may still be too technical for readers unfamiliar with the topic or without a strong science background. For example, what is a microbial opsin or what is an optogenetic actuator? I would recommend adding a few sentences or two after specific scientific terms to improve understanding for the reader.
I would also recommend writing in a more active tense rather than the passive tense to improve readability and perhaps changing the title "How does it Work?" to a more technical title.