this post was submitted on
674 points (72% like it)
1,102 up votes 428 down votes
all 118 comments

[–]ren5311Evolutionary Biology|Neuroscience|Pharmacology 419 points420 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is a surprisingly interesting question. My first thought was that with no DNA, you'd be unable to replace cells, so you'd have massive GI and skin problems that would kill you in a few days.

But you're right that cells might die first in the absence of appropriate regulation. So, then I figured it would be the cyclins or CDKs that would fail to regulate cell cycle, causing aberrant growth. But you've got no DNA to replicate!

The method of cell death would have to be either triggered apoptosis or necrosis. ~~ But the apoptotic response requires significant transcriptional activity...~~ Maybe calpstatin would fail to inhibit calpain, which would destroy the cytoskeleton and release lysosomal enzymes? Alternatively, necrosis could result from disturbances in energy processing, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a metabolic protein with a lifetime less than an hour.

I also like discupula_vitae's idea of heat shock proteins being needed to regulate correct protein conformations after changes in temperature, which is illustrative of the fact that without DNA and related transcriptional machinery, all your cells would be profoundly sensitive to the most minor changes in their environment.

On a system level, you would probably die from massive release of pancreatic enzymes or internal bleeding from leaky blood vessels.

[–]IKilledLauraPalmerVirology|Immunology 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But the apoptotic response requires significant transcriptional activity

Note that this is not the case. All of the components for apoptosis are present in the cell, in an inactive state. That's why you can treat cells with TNFa and cyclohexamide (protein synthesis inhibitor) and you still get apoptosis. Cell death is a cool field.

[–]atomfullereneAnimal Behavior/Marine Biology 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

See, this is exactly why it bugs me when people complain that physically impossible questions are meaningless and pointless-which I see in the physics threads all the time. There's no imaginable way to remove all the DNA from someone's body, but it's still an interesting question to ask, and sheds light on all sorts of valuable information about how the systems involved work.

[–]gmano 77 points78 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My best guess it that some of your neurotransmitters (namely the peptide or amino acid ones) would no longer be produced, leaving you unable to trigger things like your heart pumping, or basic brain functions. Minutes at BEST.

[–]devicerandomMolecular Biophysics|Molecular Biology 73 points74 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why? Enzymes producing neurotransmitters would be around for several minutes if not hours, and neurotransmitters are recycled.

[–]monkey_folk 22 points23 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wouldn't most of the enzymes have relatively short half-lives? As would the re-uptake channels in pre-synaptic cells. Millions of ions/proteins rush through them - physical stress takes its toll.

[–]devicerandomMolecular Biophysics|Molecular Biology 38 points39 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

See below. There are poisons that shut down protein synthesis, and yet they require days to kill a person.

[–]monkey_folk 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Should always be weary with poison studies - they tend to have a lot of unpredictable effects. Are these poisons which affect ribosomes? I can't see anything below.

[–]devicerandomMolecular Biophysics|Molecular Biology 26 points27 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Amatoxins. They affect RNA polymerase. They shut down transcription.

[–]monkey_folk 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

DISCLAIMER: ALTHOUGH MANY PEOPLE MAY WANT TO IGNORE/DOWNVOTE THIS, IT IS NONETHELESS IMPORTANT TO READ.

[PLEASE] Tell me, what is the degree of heterogeneity like in the RNA pol world? Would all RNA pols express the B3 subunit? (Quick google search told me that Amatoxin bound B3). Is there a chance these toxins wouldn't actually affect ALL RNA pols? Hence transcription could continue?

EDIT: Downvoted for not saying please. Oh good. It was actually meant to be more like "think about this before you make rash claims about the nature of toxin studies". Directed at all. It's could have been easy for a bystander to read what devicerandom had written and completely absorb it without properly weighing up the implications. Sure, Amatoxins shut down transcription. Is that in all cell types? Does it have a high or low affinity for its substrate? Does it bind all RNA Polymerases? There's a lot of unaddressed questions that all-in-all make the amatoxin analogy rather weak. They clearly don't shut down all protein synthesis so aren't really applicable for answering the OP's question. Days is almost definitely a long-shot.

[–]Astorb 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think Amatoxin affects only RNA Pol II, which happens to be the one doing most of the transcribing in eukaryotic cells. If I remember correctly from a lecture I had it also slightly affects one of the other Pols, don´t remember which one though.

Both RNA Pol I and III are involved with only a small part of the transcriptome, namely parts that are relevant to the ribosomal machinery and other small RNAs.

Unfortunately they cannot compensate for the lack of RNA Pol II, which is why the toxin of these Fungi is so deadly.

EDIT: Found it on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-Amanitin

RNA polymerase I is insensitive, RNA pol II is highly sensitive, and RNA pol III is slightly sensitive.

[–]devicerandomMolecular Biophysics|Molecular Biology 48 points49 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hey look you study molecular biology. Tell me

Hey look, what about using "please" ? It's not like I am your molecular biology bitch :)

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]lordB8r 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, stop asking him your homework questions...use wikipedia just like everyone else, dammit!

[–]ordinaryrendition 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wouldn't those poisons take some time to shut down protein synthesis completely? My guess is that if all DNA is gone, you only have until the current mRNA is degraded in your cells for all synthesis to stop.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Do those poisons pass blood-brain barrier and enter brain?

[–]not_citing_laemmliToxicology|Analytical Chemistry 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

no

[–]predaderp 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

yes but poisons are not saturated in your body 100% and do not shut down the protein syntheses of your entire body, the disappearance of all your DNA is much more widespread in your body and has a stronger effect.

[–]devicerandomMolecular Biophysics|Molecular Biology 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, of course. Still I don't think one would be dead before a few hours at least.

[–]helmQuantum Optics|Solid State Quantum Physics 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think they manage to affect all cells in the body at the same time. Just shutting down a lot of activity would be fatal too.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Its not only that neurotransmitters need to be produced, but the homeostasis between different neurotransmitters and neuromodulators that must be actively maintained. If the balance goes slightly off neurons can't work properly. I don't know how fast the homeostasis would go haywire, but my guess is within minutes.

[–]genesai 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Axonal transport takes time. You wouldn't die of this that quickly I think.

[–]NovaeDeArx 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Probably not right; acetylcholinesterase takes a few weeks to replenish if depleted, and I'm assuming most neurotransmitters run about the same timeframe.

[–]rigajBiomolecular Crystallography[!] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i'd say microseconds, neurotransmitters work at the level of nanoseconds.

[–]opalorchid -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The heart beats independently.

[–]goaliecaMachine vision|Media Encoding/Compression|Signal Processing 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The heart beats due to the sino-atrial node firing properly.

[–]pleione 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

While the sino-atrial node is the primary mechanism to initiate a heart contraction, the atrioventricular node can take over if the SA fails to fire, albeit at a lower rate. If the AV node also fails, a contraction can originate from the bundle of His at a still-lower rate, and even the ventricle walls themselves can initiate a beat.

They won't be terribly efficient beats, but the heart can and does continue to contract lacking a signal from the SA node.

[–]wastelander 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I believe all heart cells have a certain degree of automaticity, the sino-atrial node usually controls the heart rate only because it beats first/fastest.

[–]Variola13 8 points9 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I also thought about the enzyme activity, given that some enzymes work ridiculously fast, with a turnover of seconds, how quickly would it take effect if these enzymes were no longer being produced?

Obviously it would depend on the enzyme, how stable it was and if it was recycled after each use.

Also without transcription, outsider signals would not trigger intracellular signalling, so things like blood pressure would be affected (vasopressin or atrial peptides for example).

Then I thought about sympathetic innervation, to the heart and such like, that all requires transcription too.

Arrrghhh now my noodle is baked!!!!

EDIT: Keep thinking of different things!

[–]bdunderscore 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

if it was recycled after each use.

Enzymes, by definition, are not consumed when they are used.

[–]Variola13 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Enzymes, by definition, are not consumed when they are used.

Yup true, my thinking was if they are reused quickly or if they are broken down and have to be reformed before being used.

[–]drockers 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I loved reading this because you wrote down exactly how my brain was racing through ideas faster then i could conciously think. I felt like the doctor in one of those... Yes ! no, maybe but ah oh course ! moments

[–]jamesshuang 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, as a very rough idea, amatoxins inhibit all mRNA production. Considering the complete elimination of all DNA would halt mRNA production, I'd assume that the magical disappearance of DNA would probably resemble massive systemic amatoxin poisoning. In other words, pain, coma, death in under 3 days :-p

[–]anhero23 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So basically we would turn into goo?

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]hughk 46 points47 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well people who have had high radiation doses without other injuries such as the workers who were exposed to the core after Chernobyl (causing major DNA/RNA damage) tend to die within 72 hours or so. Initial symptoms of heavy radiation doses are related to the failure of the gut lining (which is normally continually replenished).

Note that the DNA/RNA is not totally destroyed by the exposure but it, along with other complex molecules are pretty much disrupted.

[–]devicerandomMolecular Biophysics|Molecular Biology 28 points29 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hear, hear. That's more or less what would happen. Losing DNA would look like an absolutely massive radiation poisoning, perhaps slightly faster.

Also, Amanita phalloides poisoning derives from the shutdown of RNA transcription, which would be quite similar to loss of DNA practically. Still, it takes days to die of it.

[–]hughk 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think the delay that you mentionin connection with mushroom poisoning is because the shutdown of RNA transcription is not universal. However the liver/kidneys tend to accumulate whatever nasties are circulating with the blood so would have the highest toxin dose. Therefore this would be more of a selective failure than a universal one as would a blast of gamma to the whole body.

[–]captainnobliviouss 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think you should stop using this example now. If all the DNA disappeared, it wouldn't take you days long to die from it. It's not just a matter of RNA survival that one takes into account when considering how cells work and basis of necrosis.

[–]devicerandomMolecular Biophysics|Molecular Biology 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think you should stop using this example now.

Daddy wanna spank me? :D

[–]thetrippMedical Physics|Radiation Oncology 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

At the highest levels of acute radiation exposure that humans have ever encountered, the immediate symptom/cause of death is nervous system failure within a few hours. Below the threshold for nervous system damage, GI damage is the immediate threat (like you said).

[–]hughk 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm curious, apart from the obvious like Hiroshima/Nagasaki what other incident was powerful enough to cause the CNS failure? With the bombs, people who were that close tended to get killed by the heat/blast. Even Slotin, the guy who was killed at Los Alamos during the prompt criticality experiments died a day and a half later. after being exposed to 21Sv. However, he was able to leave the room unassisted.

[–]Dr_Roboto 71 points72 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Another thing to consider is that DNA has a net charge that is counter-balanced by ions in the cytosol and there is a lot of it. Your cells would suddenly have a lot of unbalanced charges which would probably cause many proteins to denature or assume nonfunctional conformations. The result would be much like what happens when you cook an egg.

[–]devicerandomMolecular Biophysics|Molecular Biology 37 points38 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Meh, if we assume you lose charge then you have more serious problems than protein denaturation or chemical imbalance. You are basically becoming electrically charged, and hugely. I suspect currents would form, and this would create much more immediate trouble.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]elquimicoAnalytical Chemistry|Electrochemistry 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It'd be interesting to note how much DNA is present in a typical person and figure out how much charge they'd be lacking. If it was really significant, would people be extremely opposed to one another and shoot off in all directions?

I haven't done the calculations but it might work.

[–]Calvert4096 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sounds nasty. If cells would be physically disrupted by the sudden absence of large molecules, it might be better to ask what would happen if merely all DNA transcription was suddenly and permanently blocked in every cell simultaneously.

[–]klenowLung Diseases|Inflammation 26 points27 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've been thinking this over; it's a fascinating intellectual exercise.

The first hurdle would be the disruption of the electrochemical gradient due to the loss of the negative charge of the DNA. This would be uninteresting, though, because it means that every cell would just lose the ability to do anything instantly and you'd just drop dead; fraction of a second. All muscles would shut down (Calcium can't flow anymore because the cytosol is too positively charged), including the heart. All nerves would instantly lose the ability to transnduce action potentials. Instant death. We're talking maybe seconds to live. Probably less than one second.

But since we're in magicland anyway, let's say you replace the DNA with an equivalent charge. No charge loss, you survive the first second.

Now you have a few timers going, and they race to the finish. One would be the gut epithelium. It has a half life of 3-5 days. Since you no longer can make anymore gut cells, you almost immediately start getting ulcers in your gut tract. It's only a matter of time before you lose enough blood to die; and you can't make more blood anymore. I'd estimate this timer is around a day.

The other one would be growth factors. Certain cells in your body require constant signals to stay alive. As these fade away, these cells will decide to die. This one is harder to gauge; I don't know all the factors involved & I don't know their half lives. Cell death would be complicated, too, as apoptosis (cell suicide) generally requires transcription or damaged DNA to work. But there are DNA independent mechanisms. The loss of signal would cause a sustained calcium flux. This would cause the release of cytochrome c (a protein that is always there) into the inner membrane space of the mitochondria. This would shut them down. Once that happens, no more ATP gets made and the cell will be dead in less than a minute when the ATP runs out.

My guess is that you'd die over the course of about a day, maybe less, from a combination of these two things.

[–]srs_house 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This seems like the right approach to figuring it out, it just needs to be expanded to include proteins and other DNA-related things below the cell level.

[–]klenowLung Diseases|Inflammation 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I can't think of anything that would have an impact on a shorter timescale. I think the gut epithelium bleedout/sepsis is going to be the limiting factor.

What kind of things are you referring to?

[–]srs_house 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Protein synthesis, ATP synthesis, proteins/cells that are already in the process of degradation when DNA removal occurs, things relying upon RNA synthesis, biofeedback loops, etc.

Basically anything that might cause organ failure or screw with signal transmission.

[–]discipula_vitae 162 points163 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your death seems pretty imminent. Your body needs that DNA at pretty much all times to create new proteins to give you life. Proteins that are created all have different "lifespans" but they are pretty short because the body needs to be able to regulate at all times. So the first time your body temperature changes and you body can't make new proteins to correct it, you will be at risk. But it will probably sometime even sooner than that. Not having the correct proteins to metabolize or expel some sort of compound right away and being poisoned by some byproduct of an already on going chemical process seems most likely. Very interesting question.

[–]MonkE 29 points30 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

came here to say that, you would just slowly(30-45 mins.) become dead.

[–]ColonelSin 58 points59 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I wonder if it might happen even faster. I don't know a terrible amount about neuroscience, but I do know that neurotransmitters need to be produced pretty frequently. I think there is some recycling of "used" neurotransmitters (re-uptake), but just thinking about how fast signals the brain sends oscillate back and forth, it might be a matter of a few minutes before the brain physically couldn't signal anymore.
Edit: I'm definitely putting my money on being killed very quickly. See function of the brainstem. If that part of your brain is even slightly misbalanced in chemical controls of signaling, you're dead quick like.

[–]funkstar_deluxe 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's true that some neurotransmitters need to be produced quite frequently. However, the site at which they are made is very far away from the nucleus (in microscopic terms) and it takes a long time for products made directly from DNA to get to that part of the cell (the signalling portion, called the synaptic bouton).

Instead of having proteins made directly from the DNA having to be sent to the bouton, the cell sends ribosomes (protein-making molecules) down there to do the dirty work. The boutons can thus make their own neurotransmitters etc when they need them without any interaction with the nucleus or the DNA.

Chemical controls of signalling would be ok for a while. I think it would be other processes that would kill you before changes in neurotransmitters occurred. Hope this made sense!

(Also - most transmitters aren't actually "produced" on site. They're broken down in the synaptic cleft so they become inactive, and the breakdown products are sucked back into the cell to be reformed, which the cell doesn't need DNA to do in the short term).

[–]displacingtime 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not my area, so maybe I'm wrong, but don't the ribosomes need RNA (made from the DNA) for the directions about what to make? I don't know if the same RNA strand lasts for multiple uses, but it seems they'd quickly need the new DNA->RNA directions.

[–]MonkE 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

holy shit..."neurotransmitters", I forgot this word about a week ago and have had countless conversations requiring the use of it, instead I've been having to say "brain chemicals", feeling like a douche. thank you for using it, and yes of course you die quickly without genetics. ;)

[–]ColonelSin 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ha, that type of thing happens all to often with me. I'd give you an example of the last word I forgot that was really basic, but I can't remember now...

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

aren't proteins made by mRNA on ribosomes? Since you still have ribosomes and RNA floating around you should be okay for a while. The question really is, how quickly do those need to be replaced.

[–]bobthemighty_ 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

mRNA is very short term, once it's used, it's gone.

[–]ChocolateWaffle 20 points21 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Only in prokaryotes. In eukaryotes mRNA is usually stable for a couple of hours (although it varies a lot).

[–]bobthemighty_ 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks.

[–]TexSC 31 points32 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your cells have proteins just to check the integrity of the DNA. My bet is that some of these proteins would detect the DNA was missing, and trigger apoptosis immediately. I think you would die in seconds.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]hughk 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Liquefaction or at least a sludge as the cell walls go. Apoptosis allows what was in cells to be recycled or eliminated as waste.

[–]beefjerkier 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

would it really though? you have a lot of hardened material keeping you in one piece- bone, skin, legaments and other connective tissue... the cells might die the but structures likely won't totally liquefy

[–]hughk 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

True, your bones would stay but I could see a lot of other stuff self destructing pretty quickly.

[–]instantrobotwar 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That would be quite a sight to behold.

[–]hughk 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

BeefJerker commented that the bone and maybe the harder connective tissues might survive, but it would still look pretty grim.

[–]TexSC 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually, I think this would look surprisingly "normal." Most of cells are held in place by the extra cellular matrix (collagen fibers). Also, obviously your bones would last a long time. So, I think you would become very pale as your heart stops beating, and you would die of brain ischemia.

[–]discipula_vitae 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The problem with this is "triggering" apoptosis means creating the correct proteins to start apoptosis, which cannot happen if there is no DNA to transcribe those proteins. At least that's my understanding of apoptosis.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So I was thinking about this and it seems to be you'd have to look at which metabolically necessary protein or enzyme has the shortest half life, then count up until you wouldn't have enough of said enzyme in your cells to sustain general metabolism. I'm thinking it's probably one of the key TCA cycle enzymes. Without DNA your house keeping genes wouldn't be able to replenish these enzymes and once they wear out your cell wouldn't have energy to keep itself running. You'd probably become tired... then take a nap then peacefully pass away. I hope.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Probably on the order of an hour or two, still far under the replication time for your average cell.

[–]dcherub 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

pretty sure it takes like 10 hours for the average cell to go through s-phase

[–]kitchendancer 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I really enjoyed reading through the other answers, but I'm going to throw a more metaphysical biological food-for-thought into the ring as well.

It's actually really difficult to comprehensively define "life" and "death" from scientific standpoint, even though we all feel that we intuitively know what it means.

Most biological definitions of "life" require:

  • capacity to grow
  • metabolism (chemical and biochemical reactions within an organism)
  • ability to respond to stimulus
  • ability to reproduce

At the moment of losing your DNA, you would completely lose the ability to reproduce and the capacity to grow, though you keep the other two to some degree thanks to the biological material you already possess. Is that satisfying the definition enough in order to call yourself still alive? Maybe... maybe not. Using the above as yes/no binary qualities, a PCR reaction reasonably satisfies "metabolism" and "ability to respond to stimulus (temperature, cofactors, salts, etc)"

Maybe you'd be instantly non-living according to biology, even if your processes keep ... processing.

*I accidentally a word.

[–]discipula_vitae -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This answer blows my mind. I applaud your genius. You are a god among ants.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]rz2000 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This was my first guess, though the last I took biology was a long time ago. Do you say "technically" because it is mitochondrial DNA?

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]antonivs 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

ATP is a DNA

Perhaps I'm missing something, in which case please enlighten me. But even allowing for a non-technical use of the terms, this seems really wrong to me, and I don't understand what it's trying to communicate.

ATP contains adenine and is used in the transcription process, but to say it "is a DNA" seems far more confusing and erroneous to me than any possible non-technical benefit such a phrase might have.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]antonivs 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks for the clarification. I'm still balking at "ATP would be an RNA." According to Wikipedia, ATP is a nucleotide that is "basically a monomer of RNA". Under monomer, it says "Nucleotides, monomers found in the cell nucleus, polymerize to form nucleic acids – DNA and RNA." So ATP can form RNA, but I wouldn't think it would be correct to say that it is an RNA.

Edit: I just connected what I wrote with what you wrote and now understand what you're saying better. So one might technically justify that non-standard use of the terminology, if your goal is to confuse the heck out of everyone. ;)

[–]SMTRodent 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So death would look like the person had taken cyanide?

[–]Alonsa 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The seeds of Abrus precatorius don't destroy a DNA, but they're effectivelly blocking a proteosynthesis by inactivating the 26S subunit of the ribosome. One seed is able to kill human (3 mkgs of abrine which corresponds LD50 < 100 ng/kg).

Again, it tooks more than three days to kill the human with proteosynthesis blocked.

[–]captainnobliviouss 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

With all protein production being stopped within minutes (RNA degradation), protein degradation will follow. Once the electronegativity of the cell changes with the disappearance of DNA, RNAs and proteins (which include channels of all sorts that regulate ion flow), all sorts of voltage gated channels will open, the ones with the most destructive potential being Ca+2 channels. Membrane integrity will be jeopardized, internal Ca+2 levels will go up, reactive oxygen species production will kick in, lysosomal enzymes will be released and necrosis will set in.

Once necrosis starts, it'll cause a chain reaction that will kill every single cell and damage every type of tissue in the body partly because reduncancy systems to keep necrosis in check themselves stop functioning and partly because necrosis often cannot be confined successfully even with the aformentioned systems in place.

My estimate: death within hours (<24hrs), perhaps as soon as 30 minutes - 1 hour. Loss of conscioussness in seconds.

[–]IAmA_scientist2Cancer Biology|Translational Research 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I imagine the immediate problem would be that without DNA, you would not be able to produce mRNA which would then be used to produce proteins. It's probably the same as if you treated your cells with cyclohexamide (inhibitor of protein biosynthesis).

[–]cowhead 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You can find out by taking alpha amanitin. The main job of your DNA is to serve as a template for making RNA and thus protein. This drug blocks that process completely. But, take that away, and you should still have some proteins left to keep you going for awhile. This is an interesting question, because I would have thought that this "while" would be hours. Instead, it appears to be days. People with amanitin poisoning last up to 10 days! Of course, they probably haven't ingested enough to block all new protein synthesis, but still....

[–]salgat 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your DNA produces all the enzymes and proteins you need for your body. I'm pretty sure within a day nearly all your cells would die since they wouldn't be able to do anything.

[–]arabidopsisBiotechnology|Biochemical Engineering 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Apoptosis will kill you.

You will probably see specks of yourself fall off, as your cells commence cell destruction. You will see necrosis, and probably not feel pain, but notice parts of you going black, most likely from the most dividing cells to the least, so you will literally sit there watching yourself rot.

[–]discipula_vitae 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think so... Apoptosis is regulated by proteins which cannot be created without the DNA for transcription.

[–]arabidopsisBiotechnology|Biochemical Engineering 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm asasuming his DNA vanished by fragmenting first, and looking like it got damaged, so Apoptosis proteins are activated.

But a lot of the proetins that regulate apoptosis, also require other proteins to bind to DNA.. so if the DNA has gone, Apoptosis will commence.

[–]AdmOxalate 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There are a whole set of constantly transcribed genes called "housekeeping genes," which would no longer be transcribed once the DNA is gone. Many regulatory proteins have half lives on the order of minutes. I think you would die on the order of minutes to an hour as your mitochondria die and cellular respiration halts; You are probably already unconscious by the time that happens though.

[–]philyd2000 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Absence of neurotransmitters would cause the phrenic nerve to no longer initiate breathing (same with all respiratory muscles). Without a ventilator, you'd last only minutes with this limitation.

[–]kitchendancer 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Neurotransmitters are actually synthesized from amino acids and other chemical precursors, by enzymes. As long as the synthesizing enzymes are present in the cell (which they are at housekeeping levels), DNA is extraneous to the process at the immediate level.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nearly immediately. Protein synthesis would fail, and pretty much every system would begin to fail immediately from neuron firing to muscle control

[–]pizearke 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If I recall correctly, tissue that constantly needs new cells, such as intestinal tissue, wouldn't be able to replace itself. You also wouldn't be able to create proteins such as insulin or hemoglobin.

There's probably more than that, but that's what came to my mind.

[–]mojotoad 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Running with the premise, wouldn't the sudden appearance of so many micro-vacuums in every cell (minus red blood) cause significant systemic shock, up to and including sludge-syndrome?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is like asking if a computer's Hard Drive is disconnected, how long does it have before it crashes.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

a few seconds?

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]