Slashdot Mirror


After Death, Hundreds of Genes Spring Back to Life

Two surprising studies reveal new information about what genes do after death. Slashdot reader gurps_npc writes: You think your body stops after death, but up to two days later certain genes may turn on and start doing stuff for another two days before they give up the ghost. We are all zombies for up to four days after death.
Gizmodo reports that in fact "hundreds" of genes apparently spring back to life. "[P]revious work on human cadavers demonstrated that some genes remain active after death, but we had no idea as to the extent of this strange phenomenon."

62 comments

  1. Not that it matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germs will be germs.

  2. Its simple by bazmail · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The death of suppression genes allow some of the surpressed to activate post mortem. But to no end. They die soon.

    1. Re:Its simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they're just looking for the right compost.... brains.

    2. Re:Its simple by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A large portion of our (and virtually all other life) is partially composed of virus-inserted code.

      To a virus, life isn't really a thing to begin with, only DNA interactions, with rare opportunities to copy.

      From that perspective, death of the host body just means it's bacteria party time, and even if 99% of organelles used to copy are kaput, almost all viruses are bacteria-predators anyway. So, hiding away in human DNA for a few hundred generations or whatever is just a distraction from getting to the (ambiguous) goal of a bacteria to infect.

      So, now that they're not suppressed, some random virus code passively sends a request to the organelles to write a copy of themselves for the 83rd billionth time, and this time don't get their message scrambled. All this happens trillions of times, infects perhaps millions of bacteria that manage to escape, which spread off into the world to keep the messy process going.

      Niches for DNA code are massively multidimensional, and even though the possibility space for success is outrageously sparse, the life that lives in the outer reaches of possiblity doesn't have be intelligent to know it's a bad idea, and so spreads where we can't imagine. Things like life that only has the chance to reproduce every few hundred years (using another life form's mechanisms to keep their DNA active in the meantime), or has to jump between 3 species in order to continue a full reproduction cycle.

      Heck, the only reason we can move around and talk and stuff is because some odd other microlife got mixed in with an ancestors cells to become mitocondria. With that, we can live away from immediate energy sources, and use sugars. To this day, bacteria are constantly mixing DNA with eachother, getting into the oddest combinations, with some help from viruses, who get everyone else involved in the party.

      And from a microscopic perspective, we're mostly mobile apartments for bacteria, that protect the bacteria/helpful viruses we like from the bacteria/viruses that tend to wreck the apartment. Fortunately, most bacteria are boring tenants, and most viruses only target bacteria.

      Ryan Fenton

    3. Re:Its simple by quantaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A large portion of our (and virtually all other life) is partially composed of virus-inserted code.

      To a virus, life isn't really a thing to begin with, only DNA interactions, with rare opportunities to copy.

      From that perspective, death of the host body just means it's bacteria party time, and even if 99% of organelles used to copy are kaput, almost all viruses are bacteria-predators anyway. So, hiding away in human DNA for a few hundred generations or whatever is just a distraction from getting to the (ambiguous) goal of a bacteria to infect.

      [...]

      Niches for DNA code are massively multidimensional, and even though the possibility space for success is outrageously sparse, the life that lives in the outer reaches of possiblity doesn't have be intelligent to know it's a bad idea, and so spreads where we can't imagine. Things like life that only has the chance to reproduce every few hundred years (using another life form's mechanisms to keep their DNA active in the meantime), or has to jump between 3 species in order to continue a full reproduction cycle.

      I'm not sure this story holds up. The moment a virus gene is inserted into our genome its reproductive cycle becomes tied to ours. Even if some virus DNA could escape our cells and infect bacteria post-mortem they'd just become ordinary viruses.

      The only way for genes to retain function is for that function to be subject to natural selection. But as long as those virus genes are trapped in a human DNA strand the only way for them to propagate is through people, and the moment they escaped they'd be tied to that new organism. There's nothing in human reproduction that ensures that transplanted virus strands stay functional viruses.

      A gene going through a multi-species reproductive cycle sounds interesting, but I'm really skeptical it's happening. At least in humans that cross-species jump is just too difficult.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re: Its simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it was zombies that voted for Brexit?

  3. last chance to spread genes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was female mortician who had sex with dead male who got erection (this is common the erection part), she got pregnant.

    1. Re:last chance to spread genes by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Somehow doubtful. When talking about some corpse getting stiff, this is usually not what is meant.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:last chance to spread genes by lucm · · Score: 2

      the opposite would be even more impressive.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re:last chance to spread genes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Citation needed (for adult bedtime horror story time)

    4. Re:last chance to spread genes by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      It has been known to happen, but normally when the deceased was hanged.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    5. Re:last chance to spread genes by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then it usually happens at the moment of death, not after he's been cut down and stowed in the mortician's office for a while.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. Click bait? by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's that article beside click-bait?

    "previous work on human cadavers demonstrated that some genes remain active after death" What does mean "remain active" with regards to genes? For all that I know (and I own a Biology major) genes just "stay there" (more or less) for RNA to make use of them so, what this does mean? That supressing factors, as they are supressing no more after death, allow for some genes to be expressed after death? What a surprise! I don't mean the details not to be worthnoting as I'm not aware too many time/money has been thrown towards that target but that the general assertion is of little surprise. We already knew death is not an event but a process (despite all legal interest in the contrary).

    1. Re:Click bait? by Wuhao · · Score: 5, Funny

      For all that I know (and I own a Biology major)

      Owning people is morally wrong. I really think you should let that poor student go.

    2. Re:Click bait? by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am a CEO, you insensitive clod!

    3. Re:Click bait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and why not just link to the original article, instead of the Gizmodo piece which is pretty much just an elementary school science report-style rephrasing of that article?

    4. Re: Click bait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right? Those shareholders can and will sue you if you do anything other than treat your employees like crap.

    5. Re:Click bait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jurisdiction ends at death.

      You'll probably interpret this as intended humor.

    6. Re:Click bait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A large number of people believe that death is instantaneous, that at t=-0.001 there is a soul there and you are alive, and at t=0.001 the soul has left and you are an inert dead object. That chemistry continues to operate with or without you being "alive" is indeed news to these sorts of people.

    7. Re:Click bait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genes are active if they produce proteins. Active=expressed. Sorry the article didn't use the term you prefer.

    8. Re: Click bait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he'd know that if he owned a humanities major.

    9. Re: Click bait? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed.

  5. Re:frimSt psot! by lucm · · Score: 1

    Ahmad, you forgot again to use the new weekly encryption algorihm. I told you many times you have to do "git pull" every Saturday before sending communications otherwise the sleeper cells can't decrypt the message.

    One more screwup like this and you're going back to AK-47 polishing duty.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  6. Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't gizmodo just up and die a company's dead, like, go bankrupt? It's a zombie news article on a zombie site!!!1!

  7. Soul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After death soul must prepare for a big trip, no wonder.

  8. Life cares about the herd not the individual by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    Though the individual dies, the life "virus" (DNA, genetic material) leaps from host to host. From what I've seen and read, it seems that the individual's behavior and its life and death itself are designed, by the "virus", to maximize the health and size of the herd. In that context, it could well be mechanisms are then activated to quickly break down the individual body back into its components for re-use, which maximizes herd health in some way.

    However, that could be driven to maximize not merely the population of the individual's species but the overall presence of life itself, from its most minute forms and larger. Again driven by the desire of the underlying "life virus" to maximize the incidence of lifeforms, for whatever reason.

  9. Your computer changes after you turn it off! by shess · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sometimes, after you turn your computer off, activity does not immediately cease! There are various thermal adjustments which continue to happen for hours after power down! Sometimes random electrical signals can be sent for no apparent reason!

    Seriously, the human body is a complicated chemical plant without centralized control. Some stuff keeps happening. Other stuff doesn't. Big deal.

    1. Re: Your computer changes after you turn it off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember you could switch an Atari 80 off and switch it back on again and the RAM boards still had the contents that were present before the system was switched off.

    2. Re:Your computer changes after you turn it off! by BlackPignouf · · Score: 3, Funny

      The solution is obvious, ask Poettering to integrate a systemd process to terminate every gene that isn't properly killed.

    3. Re:Your computer changes after you turn it off! by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      And he would require everyone who dies the old way to adjust to his change.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    4. Re: Your computer changes after you turn it off! by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      I remember you could switch an Atari 80 off and switch it back on again and the RAM boards still had the contents that were present before the system was switched off.

      You mean the cold boot attack? Memory keeps readable for minutes after power-off, which can be drastically prolonged by rapid refrigeration.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re:Your computer changes after you turn it off! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called natural selection. Organisms don't change its structural biological operations. They just die and don't produce successful offspring!

  10. We are not truly dead. by pjv936 · · Score: 1

    The cells in our bodies remain capable of being awoken long after we stop breathing. This is why organ transplant works. It may be possible to awake the dead. We just don't know how. But I think we need to look into it because it would make a lot of things easier including surgery.

    1. Re:We are not truly dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cells in our bodies remain capable of being awoken long after we stop breathing. This is why organ transplant works. It may be possible to awake the dead. We just don't know how. But I think we need to look into it because it would make a lot of things easier including surgery.

      Are you sure your name isn't Frankenstein?

    2. Re:We are not truly dead. by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      We already do this. In some surgeries the body is cooled to the point where the brain and heart cease to function temporarily. But in normal situations the cells of the body, especially the important ones in our brain, are not capable of being awoken long after we stop breathing. At normal temperatures brain damage begins within minutes and that can not be undone.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  11. It's Gawker. So... nothing. by denzacar · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    What's that article beside click-bait?

    Being that Gizomodo is a part of the Gawker shithouse - it's all clickbait all the time.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  12. You are welcome Slashdot. by pigsycyberbully · · Score: 0

    If they are registered Organ donor the body is kept on a life-support machine to keep the body functioning even though the person has died. The Organ is removed as quickly as possible. As soon as the life-support machine is turned off the body is taken away before it begins to leak. The local town hall, is informed of the person's name and date of birth and the day and time they died. Relatives never recognise their family member they always say he is she looks totally different. To stop any surprises we quickly wipe down the face with a chemical wipe and try to tidy the hair if the relatives insist on seeing them. The muscles in the face become loose and if left for too long the muscles in the face begin to tighten up making the eyelids rise slightly so you can just about see the eyes and the teeth begin to show. Obviously nobody should see a relative when the muscles begin to tighten because they should be in a mortuary. When the muscles tighten around the mouth it gives an appearance that the person is being aggressive or about to say something bad. And that frightens people. The undertakers will make everything look pleasant. There are many genes in the body functioning after a person has died they are closing down dying. The bacteria in the stomach and the anus are still functioning.

  13. Is that really surprising? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Considering we're not really a unitary being, but more or less a hundred million separate entities living in a staggeringly complicated symbiosis, is this really a shock?

    Complex systems don't just "stop" on a dime; there's energy distributed through the system that ultimately will be used locally before local processes stop.

    Obviously, the 'independent' organisms within us continue to operate after death - bloating, decomposition, etc. How different is it if some of our own more-dependent bits keep cycling until they're "empty"?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Is that really surprising? by ledow · · Score: 1

      Technically do you ever really "die"? There's so much bacteria and other things running around in the body, it's more like you get recycled.

      Nothing goes to waste, but it's just not "you" any more. Stick a body in a sterile atmosphere and come back to teeming life using whatever resources it can for as long as it can, even if that's moulds or bacteria or mites or whatever. Isn't there something like thousands of mites per square foot of the body skin alone?

    2. Re:Is that really surprising? by pigsycyberbully · · Score: 0

      Technically do you ever really "die"? There's so much bacteria and other things running around in the body, it's more like you get recycled.

      Nothing goes to waste, but it's just not "you" any more. Stick a body in a sterile atmosphere and come back to teeming life using whatever resources it can for as long as it can, even if that's moulds or bacteria or mites or whatever. Isn't there something like thousands of mites per square foot of the body skin alone?

      You most certainly die..

      The brain is you it controls the body when the brain dies the body dies. The brain dies first.

      The brain functions on chemicals we are chemicals. Chemicals can change your personality can change you as a person.
      Steroids can make you aggressive even if you are a pleasant person you can change into an aggressive person.

      Chemicals can make you desperate for sex so much so that you would even consider having sex with somebody of the same sex even though you are not into people of the same sex.

      Antidepressants in people who are not suffering from depression can turn a person who is not depressed suicidal.

      The brain is you. Senile dementia, is classed as a terminal illness because the brain does not just forget relatives or how to walk it forgets how to control its organs like breathing or the heart beating.

      That is all Slashdot, worried about being or becoming an in Slashdot you know what.

    3. Re:Is that really surprising? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Technically do you ever really "die"?

      That's a good question

      Nothing goes to waste, but it's just not "you" any more.

      Oh right. Never mind then.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  14. Pre-print article by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 2

    Here is the pre-print article:

    http://www.biorxiv.org/content...

  15. Surprising? No, and yes by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 1

    While a lot of Slashdotters might see the summary and say, "Duh!", it is a largely unexplored area of biology. Since "Biology" literally means "the study of life", it shouldn't be surprising that not too much time is spent on what happens after death.

    A simple explanation for some of the changes in gene expression probably relates to the fact that the organs are no longer working together to keep the organism alive. Furthermore, cells within an organism are in competition for the increasingly scarce resources (oxygen since lungs aren't inhaling, heart isn't circulating blood, and nutrition as well), and activate stress genes.

    As for the genes involved in cancer, well, a simplified view of a cancerous cell is a cell that has lost it's ability to communicate with it's neighbors. Not something that is needed if you are going to compete with them.

  16. Random stuff by duckintheface · · Score: 2

    As the cellular systems decay, there is probably lots of random stuff going on. Normal feedback pathways don't work. It's impossible to predict. But there is not really a reasonable mechanism for evolutionary selection for these processes so even the ones that make sense (like stress reaction or immune stimulation) are just vestigial precesses. Not interesting.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re: Random stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It explains why scientists were measuring brain activity in fish that had been dead for days. They took a fMRI scanner, cranked up the sensitivity and watched for activity.

    2. Re:Random stuff by sjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can imagine one (not saying it is at work here). If some residual activity reduced the chances of harmful (to the still living) bacteria taking hold, it might confer a slight advantage to the still living relatives of the deceased.

    3. Re:Random stuff by careysub · · Score: 1

      Probably not. Rotting cadavers are nauseating, and stressful to the living, but they are not health threats. Really, they are not.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    4. Re:Random stuff by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sure, NOW they aren't.

    5. Re:Random stuff by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There is no need to assign any motives here. Sometimes I feel people have decided that when they abandon a belief that everything must have a purpose assigned by a micromanaging deity they retain some of that and insist that everything must have an evolutionary reason. People seem scared of randomness, meaninglessness, chaos. Then combine this with a warped idea of what evolution is (that it's to improve species) and this gets magnified. Thus they feel there must be an evolutionary answer to why there are grandparents, does being gay have an evolutionary reason, and so on. Social scientists drag in evolution to try and make sense of the chaos of society too. The news media spreads around all this stuff like it's valid. Lots of things are random, evolution can create side effects that are harmful, mutations stick around, a very wide bell curve of variations remains, and so on. So here, there's a perfectly normal rational reason for why these genes are activated after death, but still there's "maybe there's a reason for it" shows up again.

      This is anthopomorphizing of evolution, like it has a motivation or goal. Another good word for it is "Panglossian", as described here:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
      "Spandrels" are an architecture feature have little functional or structural use, they exist as a by-product of the primary architectural structures. In Biology the same concept exists. A particular evolutionary advantage may have by products and side effects. Male nipples being an example, no real need for them, they only exist because of shared processes during fetal development. A gene does not do one and only one thing. Biological creatures are chaotic systems; turn on a simple protein here and all sorts of changes happen all over the creature. Panglossian Paradigm is to instead assume all these by products were due to evolutionary advantages rather than just being spandrels, or that if there were no advantage to male nipples that they'd have evolved away.

    6. Re:Random stuff by sjames · · Score: 1

      I merely suggested a potential (though unlikely) advantage that could be at work. I also offered my doubts. More an exercise in imagination.

    7. Re:Random stuff by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      just vestigial precesses. Not interesting.

      Are you sure, i am not a medical doctor or even a biologist but it seems like studying how some of our processes behave under abnormal situations might be very interesting. Some of the behaviors might be useful for preserving life if we could trigger them on demand. They might be things we could identify and guard against when trying to save someone.

      "His kidneys are shutting down" - Well okay why is that, can me maybe make them not do that, instead of prescribing dialysis and an eventual kidney transplant?

      Which is not to suggest doctors don't try to make them not do that today thur various means and don't understand any of the causes but there could be opportunities to stop or reverse things like organ failure, if we thoroughly understood the process of failing.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    8. Re:Random stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what happened here at all.

    9. Re:Random stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS they attract vermin, will foul the ground until the decay process is done and would foul any water supply they are in or around.

    10. Re:Random stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, you are assuming that a) Evolution does have some kind of self aware procedure for selection, and b) that information is instantaneously transmitted to all points in the body. None is true. Evolution is blind, it does not know in advance where to go to and makes no anticipations, so experimentation is inherent to its Nature and a spread of variations is **kept** within the system so that out of _sheer luck_ should environmental conditions change some variation became the way to **keep things going on**. Then the body is still a conglomerate of semi-autonomous but integrated live entities, and this is true in Life as in Death, so coordination among cells, tissues, organs, systems, the individual _is_ perhaps the most important task the body has to keep its survival as long as possible. Not all cells in the body will be aware that the body died, at the same time! This coupled with genetic (experimental) variation almost ensures that after an environmental condition change, namely, death of the individual, some processes will keep going on til entropy defeats them... if it defeats them! (We can say some cancer forms are among the most successful lifeforms on Earth...) See how wonderful would it be to die then be reborn? This ALREADY HAPPENS: it is called metamorphosis in insects. Finding such genetic reactivations after death in Human bodies points to the start of evolution toward some form of metamorphosis of the body to **help** keep the individual alive, in superior beings. It is NOT FUNNY that should such happen among Humans, the reborn-after-death individuals would have INCREASED CHANCES OF SURVIVAL. Why? Because they would scare the pre-metamorphosis individuals! ... This theme is deep in the psyche, obviously. So we can hypothesize that metamorphosis in insects occurred because some species experimented (with) genetic variations that led to a transformation of the already dead individual into a different lifeform! I am not sure... I think we can say insects in metamorphosis are **dead** the same way we can say spores are **not alive**, but certainly metamorphosis occurrs because some genes activate while others already fulfilled their function, and indeed, for several practical purposes, insects in metamorphosis are as good as dead, even if some cells/systems are still very active, like in Human corpses. What is interesting is to find if, on average, any of those genes tends to affect brain structure/function. If we sustain that **spread of own genes** is the single rule that leads evolution, such changes might have an effect in enhancing the spread of its own genes by providing functional help to its offspring... 8-| - Danilo J Bonsignore

    11. Re:Random stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there is not really a reasonable mechanism for evolutionary selection for these processes so even the ones that make sense (like stress reaction or immune stimulation) are just vestigial precesses. Not interesting.

      Uggh. I as so happy you are not a professional scientist. You make a presumption that biological mechanisms for the living are the only relevant factors in evolutionary selection, and thus are pointless and not interesting. That is a horrible presumption to make, given the lack of data & research.

      This discovery is freaking fascinating. Even ignoring practical applications for forensic science and organ transplant, we just don't know why genes are activating **after** death! The fact that they are, probably means that there is some purpose, which has a survival benefit for pack animals close to the dead body. As the article speculated, a dead body might have some analogous traits to the embryo state, which may be the cause of gene activation. That can have all sorts of future applications, from limb regeneration to suspended animation.

      The unknown is not something to dismiss. The unknown is an opportunity to ask better questions.

  17. Depends what kind of death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are dropped into a volcano I doubt your genes will be springing back to life.

  18. Nobody yet? OK. by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    Things unexpectedly activating is usually due to a virus that goes by the common name of systemd.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  19. Archaic Leftover? by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 1

    We inherit a vast majority of our genes and genetic patterns from our archaic forebears; in humans, many of these older systems are turned off, in effect. This is not news. What use these genes may have had in extinct life forms hundreds of millions of years old is open to question, as is the potential evolutionary usefulness of reusing simple cellular material. In other words, single-cell organisms or those made up of semi-specialized groups of cells may have used these genes to "come back to life" if and when external conditions allowed. If the presence of these inactive genes in modern animals causes no ill evolutionary effect, they may remain in our DNA, doing their work after the possibility of evolutionary change goes away in biological death.

    In a sense, biological death may precede biochemical death by quite a long time.

  20. That's it ... by NoSalt · · Score: 0

    No cremation, embalming, or autopsy for me until a week has past.