Low light performance absolutely needs to be the next major focal area for digital photography.
In almost any camera/phone review I see example photos of the best the device can do but almost nobody ever does a good job showing the limitations of the device in poor lighting.
I walked into a photography store a while back and expressed my frustration at trying a decent camera for average lighting. The guy behind the counter handed me one and said "try this one".
I told my son to stand there and wave his arms around, and I took a photo of him in the middle of the mostly well lit store and there was a lot of motion blur. He didn't end up selling me the camera but it took me all of 5 seconds to effectively demonstrate the limitations of the technology which is something I rarely see in product reviews.
Benchmarking cameras based on optimal lighting means next to nothing in real world performance. Even putting a camera on a tripod to take pictures of fixed objects in a dimly lit room is a useless test because that's not how people use cameras and it allows the camera to compensate for low light sensitivity with a slower shutter speed without being penalized enough in motion blur.
I know fixed subjects like bowls of fruit make great apples to apples comparisons of cameras but unless we find better ways to benchmark light sensitivity we are going to be taking 40MP unusably blurry indoor photos years from now.

Question is, will this sensor be able to dial down the ISO to say 100? If not it will run into a different set of problems regarding shutter speed in bright conditions.

I also wonder being 1,000 times more sensitive to light than existing CMOS or CCD camera sensors translates to how much savings of ISOs.

"Professor Wang’s graphene sensor, being more sensitive, will negate the need to increase ISO in low light settings." ISO is a measure of the sensitivity of the sensor to light. This new sensor would not negate the need to increase your ISO in low light. Instead, it would potentially enable you to shoot at higher ISOs while having image quality that is only achievable today at lower ISOs. Very exciting possibility!

There are also applications in telescopes and satellite imaging that would benefit from these graphene sensors. If the IR performance could be extended, satellites might be able to avoid the use of liquid helium as a coolant for the current IR applications. This coolant limits the life of IR satellites to a couple of years at most.

I hate to be the Debbie Downer here, but how many times over the last decade have we read articles with the same headline? The articles always end exactly the same way this one does: "...plans to find industry partners to develop the graphene sensor into a commercial product."
These innovations never see the light of day (pun intended). Why? Take your pick.
Until Canon or Nikon (or Sony or Panasonic) actually step up to the plate and claim "We are bringing to market this Fall a new camera that can shoot perfect photos in extremely low-light conditions and it will be called such-and-suchand cost X amount of dollars", then I am going to continue to shrug apathetically at these breakthroughs.

How does it do color, lotsa little filters?

Very interesting research, but how does it perform under low ISO then? how will the IQ be? The ISO performance is not the only main thing on a camera sensor alone. Colour seperation, details, dynamic range etc are equally as important. No point getting a clean ISO 51200 with no details or poor contrast. 5 times cheaper? are you referring to camera sensors in phones or full frame sized sensors? it's great for consumer/surveillance use, but for high end photography use, not quite so yet. It's a bit ironic in the first part of the article it says "We expect our innovation will have great impact not only on the consumer imaging industry," but when they explain what ISO is all about they talk about sports photographers. they don't expect the photographers to use a consumer grade equipment to shoot tennis players right?
shall reserve my judgement until further tests are carried out since there's quite a lot of loop holes in this article. it's a good start though!

@ Daichi: While I get your point, that test you performed seems quite nebulous; who knows how the camera was adjusting or balancing its options for that shot? If you want a camera to optimize its settings specifically for freezing motion, you generally have to tell it via either manual control or semi-auto settings. Motion blur isn't directly related at all to low light performance; even if that camera had 1,000 times its current low-light performance, an auto mode might not know you wanted to optimize for minimal motion blur and, as such, still let some exist in the image. High-ISO performance and lens aperture are the only parameters limiting specifically low-light performance on a camera system.
@ Siegfried Gust: Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. Still, unlike many pro cinema cameras, still photography cameras seem to all set their optimal gain at ISO 100-400 no matter how great they perform at the higher numbers. The 1D X, the best low-light camera on the market right now, still produces better images at ISO 100 than at 1600, even if 1600 is startlingly clean. For video, hopefully manufacturers get creative with implementing in-built ND filters... I hear the new Red Dragon sensor will have a native ISO of 2000...
@ thk: Well, since a stops of light are factors of two, 1000x more light would mean a difference of about ten stops. Ten stops is the same difference between ISO 100 and 102,400, so yeah, that's a lot of light.
@ Rolf Hawkens: Especially what with how conservative many of the larger camera companies are with advancements in product capabilities, I wouldn't put it past some of them to take much, much longer than necessary to release products with this technology, were they to license it.

Diachi,, you, "Test", does not mean much. What was the ISO on the camera you tried? What was the F-stop set too? What was the F-stop of the lens? Also your problem is no problem. It is called using your flash!
DonGately, color is done the same way it is with every camera. Read Wikipidia.
Siegfried Gust, if you have too much light sensitivity the answer is very simple and old, a light filter. I think this one is called a graduated neutral density filter.