Close
today i learned (til)

Nature’s Puppeteers: When Fungi Take Control

April 14, 2025

The Last of Us video game and its live-action adaptation follow a fictional post-apocalyptic story about surviving in a world where a mutated Cordyceps fungus evolves to survive in human bodies, turning people into violent zombies. According to the chief of the Mycotic Diseases Branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tom Chiller, this idea that a fungi species can mutate to survive the high temperatures of a warm-blooded body is “far-fetched” (Parshall, 2023). We are inhaling fungal spores all the time, but because of our immune system and high body temperatures create inhospitable conditions for fungal species to live (Beckham, 2023). 

Ellie (Bella Ramsey) and Tess (Anna Torv)
Photograph by Liane Hentscher/HBO: https://press.wbd.com/us/image/bella-ramsey-anna-torv

Photograph by Liane Hentcher/HBO: https://press.wbd.com/us/image/bella-ramsey-anna-torv

Luckily for us, Cordyceps (Ophiocordyceps unilateralis) does not affect humans, but insects—Cordyceps are a parasitic fungus that takes control of the brains of insects such as ants and spiders.

The spores of Cordyceps—zombie-ant fungus—take control of the mind and motor functions of their host, paralyze them, grow in them, and reproduce (Stone, 2023). The fungus will exhaust the host of all nutrients, spreading spores in the host’s body. It then makes the insect go to a higher location, where the direct sunlight makes optimal conditions for the spores to continue spreading. The Cordyceps infection to other insects is airborne, whereas in The Last of Us, the infection is transferred through bites.

Ant killed by Ophiocordyceps fungus
“Ant killed by Ophiocordyceps fungus”
Taken By: Katja Schulz
https://www.flickr.com/photos/treegrow/29867355174/in/photolist-swe1Eu-hnxMQY-dsinf4-mCtuwz-MvgZQu-Mvh1kh-Mvh18y

Image taken by: https://www.flickr.com/photos/treegrow/29867355174/in/photolist-swe1Eu-hnxMQY-dsinf4-mCtuwz-MvgZQu-Mvh1kh-Mvh18y

Fungi can spread in two ways: “vertical transmission from mothers to their offspring and horizontal transmission through spores in the environment” (Stone, 2023). This means that spores can be inhaled or land on surfaces of the body and infect that area of the body. 

Are there Fungi that can affect humans?

According to Perlin, about one billion people suffer from hair, skin, or nail infections, e.g. ringworm or Athlete’s foot. While treatable, fungal infections carry major health risks. He adds that over 1.5 million people globally die from fungal infections. Discovered in 2009, a multidrug-resistant fungus, Candida auris, and has been placed on the World Health Organization’s list of ‘priority pathogens’. This is the first fungus to be able to spread from person to person and survive in higher temperatures (Beckham & Roberts, 2023). Candida auris and Aspergillus fumigatus are now global threats, according to the CDC.

Besides that, environmental fungi, e.g., mold, spread by emitting spores in the air, while others spread in the water and food supply (Perlin, 2023).

Rest assured, we know that fungal infections originate from the environment through inhaling spores or an exposed wound, and unlike viral infections that can easily be spread person-to-person, the risk of spreading a fungal infection is extremely low (Beckham).

Scott Roberts, MD warns that while a fungal apocalypse like The Last of Us is unlikely, there has been an increase in the risk of fungal disease because of the increased dependency on antibiotics. He explains that antibiotics kill all the good bacteria, which makes it easier for fungi to spread.

It’s challenging to make antifungal medication that doesn’t harm humans because fungi are more closely related to humans than viruses and bacteria (Beckham, 2023).

While it’s unlikely that a fungus-driven pandemic could occur in humans, we must take measures to respond to rising fungal infections or dangers.

The Last of Us brought awareness to the lack of antifungal vaccines or research on fungal infections. These fungal infections are difficult to treat due to fungi’s nature to mutate and evolve—many of the current drugs used to treat fungal infections are ineffective towards certain strains (Pires, 2024).

 

Sources Cited:

Backman, I. (2023, February 5). “The Last of Us” apocalypse is not realistic, but rising threat of fungal pathogens is. Yale School of Medicine. https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/the-last-of-us-apocalypse-is-not-realistic-but-rising-threat-of-fungal-pathogens-is/

Parshall, A. (2024, February 20). Could the zombie fungus in TV’s the last of US really infect people? Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-the-zombie-fungus-in-tvs-the-last-of-us-really-infect-people/

Perlin, D. (2023, Feb 16). Zombie fungus from “The Last of Us”: Is it real? New Jersey’s Top-Ranked Hospital Network. (2023, February 16). https://www.hackensackmeridianhealth.org/en/healthu/2023/02/16/zombie-fungus-from-the-last-of-us-is-it-real

Pires, T. C. S., & Pires, Y. M. S. (2024). From Candida Auris to The Last of Us Cordyceps: Addressing Fungal Infections before it’s too late. Int J Allergy & Imm, 2(1), 1-2.

Stone, L. (2025, April 6). Distinguishing between fungal fact and fiction in “The last of us” . NETEC. https://netec.org/2023/05/02/distinguishing-between-fungal-fact-and-fiction-in-the-last-of-us/

 

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Beats to Cellularly Divide To
Articles, today i learned (til)
Is that Marilyn Monroe… or Albert Einstein?!
today i learned (til)
Probiotics in Food
today i learned (til)
Atlanta Science Festival After-Party Event Reflection

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.