New insights into neural end-of-life
neurosciencenews.com
neurosciencenews.com
Speculating: does the above correlate with what we’d expect to see if the brain dumps an amount of endogenous n,n-DMT during death?
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2218949120
> Consistent with previous DMT study findings (32, 39), static analyses revealed widespread decreases in alpha power under DMT (P < 0.01, cluster corrected), and increases in both delta (P < 0.05, cluster corrected) and gamma bands (P < 0.01, cluster corrected).
DMT and otherpsychedelics are also influenced by glutamate:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7547711/
> Following a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group design, we utilized an ultra-high field multimodal brain imaging approach and demonstrated that psilocybin (0.17 mg/kg) induced region-dependent alterations in glutamate, which predicted distortions in the subjective experience of one’s self (ego dissolution). Whereas higher levels of medial prefrontal cortical glutamate were associated with negatively experienced ego dissolution, lower levels in hippocampal glutamate were associated with positively experienced ego dissolution.
Other forces seem at play as well. When I almost drowned I definitely experienced positive ego dissolution -- you feel at peace with the idea you might die. So it can't be that simple.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133642/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excitotoxicity
So is the glutamate spike the cause or the effect in this story?
> While the molecular signature of anoxic depolarization (AD) is well documented, ...
The molecular mechanism is also pretty straightforward: dying cells rupture and release ATP. ATP is not only the ultimate energy source but also a potent messenger molecule. In the brain, it excites other neurons, resulting in activation and hence depolarisation of other neurons. Furthermore, in large concentrations, it also induces apoptosis in nearby cells (not just neurons). The result is a chain reaction were the death of some neurons induces death in other neurons, and so on, and this "wave of death" is preceded by a faster moving wave of electrical activation.
The findings in the paper are interesting in the latter scenario, as they identify the deep cortical layers as the likely drivers of the wave of death (not a surprising finding for various reasons so quite likely true). Deep cortical layers are closer to the ventricles, so access would be a bit better than to the cortex in general.
A1 has a genetic trait that makes old age a terribly painful experience, and the moment of death a horrifying ordeal. Far worse than what most experience.
A2 becomes scared of death. As A2 gets older, they behave chaotically because of the trauma from watching A1 die painfully and the fear that they’ll experience the same fate.
A2 does not take good care of A3.
I hope this example (unscientifically) shows that there are likely some strong trends toward genetic traits that support a peaceful end of life period.
I suspect there are also multigenerational trends toward older members dying before they become a drain on a tribe’s resources. An obvious historically-useful benefit, that now leaves us worried sick about our aging parents (that they’ll slip and fall, and activate the “end of life” phase, where they’d have passed away if it weren’t for medical intervention).
Why wouldn't evolution select for members who don't become a drain on the tribe? Why age at all?
> The most popular idea, dating back to Weismann in the 1880s, is wrong, as he himself was quick to recognise. Weismann originally proposed that ageing and death rid populations of old worn-out individuals, replacing them with racy new models replete with a new set of genes remixed by sex. The idea invests death with some sort of nobility and symmetry, in service of a greater cause, even if it can hardly aspire to the grandeur of a religious purpose. In this view the death of an individual benefits the species, just as the death of some cells benefits the organism. But the argument is circular, as Weismann’s critics pointed out: old individuals are only ‘worn out’ if they age in the first place, so Weismann presupposed exactly what he was trying to explain. The question remained, what makes individuals ‘wear out’ with age, even if death does benefit populations?