Thinking about the action potential: the nerve signal as a window to the physical principles guiding neuronal excitability

Ever since the work of Edgar Adrian, the neuronal action potential has been considered as an electric signal, modeled and interpreted using concepts and theories lent from electronic engineering. Accordingly, the electric action potential, as the prime manifestation of neuronal excitability, serving processing and reliable “long distance” communication of the information contained in the signal, was defined as a non-linear, self-propagating, regenerative, wave of electrical activity that travels along the surface of nerve cells. Thus, in the ground-breaking theory and mathematical model of Hodgkin and Huxley (HH), linking Nernst’s treatment of the electrochemistry of semi-permeable membranes to the physical laws of electricity and Kelvin’s cable theory, the electrical characteristics of the action potential are presented as the result of the depolarization-induced, voltage- and time-dependent opening and closure of ion channels in the membrane allowing the passive flow of charge, particularly in the form of Na(+) and K(+) -ions, into and out of the neuronal cytoplasm along the respective electrochemical ion gradient. In the model, which treats the membrane as a capacitor and ion channels as resistors, these changes in ionic conductance across the membrane cause a sudden and transient alteration of the transmembrane potential, i.e., the action potential, which is then carried forward and spreads over long(er) distances by means of both active and passive conduction dependent on local current flow by diffusion of Na(+) ion in the neuronal cytoplasm. However, although highly successful in predicting and explaining many of the electric characteristics of the action potential, the HH model, nevertheless cannot accommodate the various non-electrical physical manifestations (mechanical, thermal and optical changes) that accompany action potential propagation, and for which there is ample experimental evidence. As such, the electrical conception of neuronal excitability appears to be incomplete and alternatives, aiming to improve, extend or even replace it, have been sought for. Commonly misunderstood as to their basic premises and the physical principles they are built on, and mistakenly perceived as a threat to the generally acknowledged explanatory power of the “classical” HH framework, these attempts to present a more complete picture of neuronal physiology, have met with fierce opposition from mainstream neuroscience and, as a consequence, currently remain underdeveloped and insufficiently tested. Here we present our perspective that this may be an unfortunate state of affairs as these different biophysics-informed approaches to incorporate also non-electrical signs of the action potential into the modeling and explanation of the nerve signal, in our view, are well suited to foster a new, more complete and better integrated understanding of the (multi)physical nature of neuronal excitability and signal transport and, hence, of neuronal function. In doing so, we will emphasize attempts to derive the different physical manifestations of the action potential from one common, macroscopic thermodynamics-based, framework treating the multiphysics of the nerve signal as the inevitable result of the collective material, i.e., physico-chemical, properties of the lipid bilayer neuronal membrane (in particular, the axolemma) and/or the so-called ectoplasm or membrane skeleton consisting of cytoskeletal protein polymers, in particular, actin fibrils. Potential consequences for our view of action potential physiology and role in neuronal function are identified and discussed.