Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Mar 17;18(3):e0283152. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283152

The importance of oxytocin neurons in the supraoptic nucleus for breastfeeding in mice

Mitsue Hagihara 1,#, Kazunari Miyamichi 1,*, Kengo Inada 1,*,#
Editor: Michael Schubert2
PMCID: PMC10022762  PMID: 36930664

Abstract

The hormone oxytocin, secreted from oxytocin neurons in the paraventricular (PVH) and supraoptic (SO) hypothalamic nuclei, promotes parturition, milk ejection, and maternal caregiving behaviors. Previous experiments with whole-body oxytocin knockout mice showed that milk ejection was the unequivocal function of oxytocin, whereas parturition and maternal behaviors were less dependent on oxytocin. Whole-body knockout, however, could induce the enhancement of expression of related gene(s), a phenomenon called genetic compensation, which may hide the actual functions of oxytocin. In addition, the relative contributions of oxytocin neurons in the PVH and SO have not been well documented. Here, we show that females with conditional knockout of oxytocin gene in both the PVH and SO undergo grossly normal parturition and maternal caregiving behaviors, while dams with a smaller number of remaining oxytocin-expressing neurons exhibit severe impairments in breastfeeding, leading to the death of their pups within 24 hours after birth. We also found that the growth of pups is normal even under oxytocin conditional knockout in PVH and SO as long as pups survive the next day of delivery, suggesting that the reduced oxytocin release affects the onset of lactation most severely. These phenotypes are largely recapitulated by SO-specific oxytocin conditional knockout, indicating the unequivocal role of oxytocin neurons in the SO in successful breastfeeding. Given that oxytocin neurons not only secrete oxytocin but also non-oxytocin neurotransmitters or neuropeptides, we further performed cell ablation of oxytocin neurons in the PVH and SO. We found that cell ablation of oxytocin neurons leads to no additional abnormalities over the oxytocin conditional knockout, suggesting that non-oxytocin ligands expressed by oxytocin neurons have negligible functions on the responses measured in this study. Collectively, our findings confirm the dispensability of oxytocin for parturition or maternal behaviors, as well as the importance of SO-derived oxytocin for breastfeeding.

Introduction

Oxytocin (OT) is a nonapeptide hormone produced by OT neurons in the paraventricular (PVH) and supraoptic (SO) hypothalamic nuclei. Recent studies have reported that OT plays important roles in sexual, maternal, and social behaviors [13], in addition to the functions documented in classical studies such as the induction of labor and milk ejection. However, studies on whole-body OT knockout (KO) mice have shown that milk ejection is a specific and essential function of OT, but dispensable for parturition [46]. Similarly, the expression of maternal caregiving behaviors does not require OT, given that the performance of parental behaviors by OT KO dams is largely similar to that by controls [5, 7], except in food-limited stressful environments [8]. Despite the clear consistencies across studies, the significance of OT signaling in the regulation of labor, milk ejection, and parental behaviors remains unclear, given that the phenotypes of a whole-body KO might be genetically compensated by the upregulation of related gene(s) [9, 10]. For example, a recent study analyzing a different function of OT neurons, weight homeostasis [1113], reported that PVH-specific OT conditional KO (cKO) mice showed a hyperphagic obesity phenotype that was not apparent in the whole-body OT KO [14]. In addition, although OT neurons can release not only OT, but also other neurotransmitters or neuropeptides, such as glutamate [15], to our knowledge, the functional roles of such non-OT ligands in the regulation of labor, milk ejection, and parental behaviors have not been described.

Here, we show the relevance of OT secretion on labor, milk ejection, and parental behaviors using an OT cKO mouse line described previously [16]. Our approach offers a better temporal resolution, which allows us to avoid the influence of possible developmental or genetic compensation [9, 10]. We also test the relative contributions of OT secretion from the PVH and SO nuclei to maternal physiology and behaviors by restricting the manipulation to a single hypothalamic nucleus. This improved spatial resolution may reveal distinct functions of OT neurons in the PVH and SO, which show distinct input–output organizations [17]. Furthermore, we compare the phenotype of OT cKO with that observed in an OT neuron-specific cell ablation experiment, in which we test an additional function of non-OT ligands expressed in the OT neurons. Taken together, we aim to improve the resolution of loss-of-function studies of OT ligand and OT neurons in terms of maternal physiology and behaviors.

Results

OT cKO mothers in both PVH and SO fail in raising pups

Previous studies with whole-body OT KO female mice showed that fertility and pregnancy were unaffected [46], whereas parturition was either normal or delayed depending on the genetic background [5]. To evaluate such phenotypes in OT cKO females, we prepared OTflox/flox mice described previously [16]. In this line, Cre expression deletes floxed exon 1 of the OT gene, resulting in the loss of transcription of OT mRNA. We crossed OT KO (OT–/–) and OTflox/flox mice and prepared OTflox/–mice [16]. Each OTflox/–female mouse was injected with an adeno-associated virus (AAV) driving Cre into both the PVH and SO (Fig 1A and 1B). Five weeks or longer after the injection, which was sufficient to reduce significantly the expression of OT mRNA in the PVH and SO (Fig 1C and 1D) [14], each female was crossed with a wild-type male (Fig 1B; Materials and Methods). We found that the durations of both pregnancy and pup delivery were indistinguishable between dams that had received vehicle (control) and AAV-Cre (+Cre) (Fig 1E–1G). However, as described previously [46], we found that in 54% (= 7/13) of the +Cre mothers’ cages, all pups were dead in the next day of birth (postpartum day 1 [PPD 1]) without any sign of infanticide, even though they were alive at PPD 0 (Materials and Methods). This phenotype was not observed in the cages of vehicle-injected mothers (0/9). The fraction of surviving pups after PPD 1 was largely binomial: nearly 100% of pups survived in the cages of “success” dams, whereas 0% survived in the cages of “failure” dams (Fig 1H). By visualizing the OT mRNA and counting OT mRNA-positive (OT+) neurons, we found that the smaller the number of remaining OT+ neurons in PVH and SO, the more likely the failure phenotype appeared (Fig 1I). In particular, in this mouse line, when the remaining OT+ neurons in the SO were fewer than 200 (orange shadow in Fig 1I), mothers mostly failed to raise their pups at PPD 1. Together with the observation that OT KO dams failed to eject milk [46], the failure of raising pups associated with OT cKO dams was most likely due to defects in milk ejection. These results support the indispensable functions of OT ligands secreted from the PVH and/or SO for milk ejection as essential for raising pups.

Fig 1. Grossly normal parturition and abnormal pup survival in OT cKO mothers.

Fig 1

(A) Schematic of the viral injection. AAV-Cre or vehicle was injected into both the bilateral PVH and SO. (B) Schematic of the timeline of the experiment. (C) Representative coronal sections. OT and Cre in situ staining are shown in magenta and green, respectively. Blue, DAPI. Scale bar, 20 μm. (D) Number of remaining OT+ neurons in the PVH (left) or SO (right). ***p < 0.001, two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test. n = 9 and 13 mothers for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. (E) The duration of pregnancy was not statistically different (p > 0.56, two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). n = 9 and 7 for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. Magenta dots indicate stillbirth. (F) Left, number of pups born from the vehicle or +Cre mothers was not statistically different (p > 0.90, two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). Right, number of pups that died within the day of delivery (PPD 0). n = 13 and 14 mothers for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. (G) Left, mean pup delivery interval in each dam. Middle, coefficient of variation showing the interval variability. Right, cumulative probability of interval. n = 59 and 40 pups for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. The p-value is shown in the panel (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). n = 8 and 5 mothers for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. (H) Survival rate of pups at PPD 1. Note that pups that died at PPD 0 (F) were excluded. n = 9 and 13 mothers for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. (I) Relationship between the success (black dots) or failure (orange dots) of raising pups at PPD 1 and the number of remaining OT+ neurons in the PVH (x-axis) or SO (y-axis). Data from the same mice shown in D. (J) Average weight of pups per dam. Mothers in which all pups were dead at PPD 1 were excluded from +Cre. No statistical difference was found in vehicle and +Cre (two-way ANOVA with repeated measurements). n = 7 and 6 for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. (K) Cumulative probability of weight of pups at PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9. Mothers in which all pups were dead at PPD 1 were not included in +Cre. The p-value is shown in the panel (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). n = 53–54 and 46 pups from seven and six mothers for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. Error bars, standard error of the mean.

If pups born to OT cKO mothers survive PPD 1, do they develop normally or show any growth defects? Given that several dams that had received AAV-Cre in both PVH and SO successfully raised pups after PPD 1, we measured the weight of those pups at PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9. We found that the average pup weights of each dam were not statistically different from those of the controls (Fig 1J). Also, the weight distribution of the pups was not statistically different from that of the pups born to vehicle-injected control mothers (Fig 1K). The development of pups was weakly correlated with the number of remaining OT+ neurons (S1 Fig). These results indicate that the growth of pups is normal even under OT cKO in PVH and SO as long as pups survive PPD 1, suggesting that the reduced OT release in cKO mothers affects the onset of lactation most severely.

Loss of OT gene from PVH and SO minimally affects maternal behaviors

OT has been shown to promote maternal caregiving behaviors in rodents [18, 19]. However, previous studies with OT KO mothers have reported normal pup-directed parental behaviors [4, 5, 7], except under food-limited stressful environments [8]. To examine whether OT cKO mothers exhibit any defects in maternal caregiving behaviors, we analyzed the OT cKO mothers characterized in Fig 1 (see Materials and Methods). After injecting AAV-Cre into the bilateral PVH and SO, a behavioral assay was performed at PPD 3 (Fig 2A and 2B). We found that all mothers showed retrieval, irrespective of the Cre expression or success/failure phenotypes of raising pups (Fig 2C). The latency to investigate the pups, number of retrieved pups, and parental care duration were not significantly different (Fig 2D–2F), suggesting that parental behaviors were unaffected by OT cKO in the PVH and SO. A significant difference was found in the time course of retrieval, as shown in the cumulative probability of retrieval (Fig 2G): mothers that received AAV-Cre required more time to retrieve pups. Among OT cKO mothers, those who exhibited the success phenotype of raising pups at PPD 1 were slightly but significantly slower in pup retrieval compared with control mothers, whereas those who showed the failure phenotype were much slower (Fig 2H). As the OT cKO mothers who succeeded in raising pups had more abundant experiences of caring for pups, the observed difference in retrieval latency may be explained by the amount of maternal learning. Taken together, although slight defects could be observed in the efficiency of pup retrieval, the overall performance of parental behaviors in mothers was unaffected by OT cKO in the PVH and SO.

Fig 2. Grossly normal parental behaviors of mothers with OT cKO in the PVH and SO.

Fig 2

(A) Schematic of the viral injection. AAV-Cre or vehicle was injected into the bilateral PVH and SO. (B) Schematic of the timeline of the experiment. A behavioral assay was conducted at PPD 3. (C) Percentage of mothers showing attack, ignore or retrieve. Note that attack or ignore was not observed in our dataset. (D) Latency to the first investigation of pups was not statistically different (two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). (E) Number of retrieved pups. (F) Parental care duration was not statistically different (two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). (G) Cumulative probability of pup retrieval. The p-value is shown in the panel (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). (H) Cumulative probability of pup retrieval of vehicle dams (gray line), and +Cre dams that exhibited success (black line) or failure (orange line) in raising pups at PPD 1 (***p < 0.001, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test with Bonferroni correction). n = 5 each for the success and failure phenotypes, respectively. n = 7 and 10 for vehicle and +Cre from the mice analyzed in Fig 1D, respectively. Orange dots indicate mothers with the failure phenotype. Error bars, standard error of the mean.

Virgin females with a loss of OT gene from PVH and SO were more likely to ignore pups

Although OT neurons are not necessary to induce caregiving behaviors in OT KO mothers [5, 7] and mothers of OT cKO in the PVH and SO (Fig 2), significant defects in the expression of maternal caregiving behaviors were observed in OT KO virgin females [20]. Furthermore, a recent study reported that virgin females co-housed with experienced mothers and pups began to show caregiving behaviors, and chemogenetic inhibition of OT neurons in the PVH impaired the expression of such alloparental caregiving behaviors [21]. Therefore, we next tested if OT cKO induces any defects in the expression of caregiving behaviors in virgin females. We performed cKO of OT gene from bilateral PVH and SO in virgin females (Fig 3A). Those females were allowed to co-house with a dam and pups for six consecutive days (Fig 3B; Materials and Methods). We confirmed a drastic reduction of the number of OT+ neurons in the PVH and SO (Fig 3C). Consistent with the previous study [21], virgin females that received AAV-Cre injection showed a significantly higher rate of ignore (Fig 3D; p < 0.001, two-tailed Fisher’s exact test). While latency to investigate did not differ (Fig 3E), decreases in the number of retrieved pups (Fig 3F) and parental care duration (Fig 3G) were found in +Cre females but did not reach the level of statistical significance (p > 0.27 and 0.15 for Fig 3F and 3G, respectively, two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). Similar to the mothers (Fig 2G), virgin females that received AAV-Cre required more time to retrieve pups (Fig 3H). Taken together, these results suggest that loss of OT expression leads to a modest but significant defect in the expression of alloparental caregiving behaviors in virgin females.

Fig 3. OT cKO in the PVH and SO in virgin females increases the probability to ignore pups.

Fig 3

(A) Schematic of the viral injection. AAV-Cre or vehicle was injected into the bilateral PVH and SO. (B) Schematic of the timeline of the experiment. A behavioral assay was performed 6 days after co-habiting with a mother and pups (see Materials and Methods). (C) Number of remaining OT+ neurons (**p < 0.01, two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). n = 7 each. (D) Percentage of females showing attack, ignore or retrieve. +Cre females were more likely to ignore the pups (p < 0.001, two-tailed Fisher’s exact test). (E) Latency to the first investigation of pups was not statistically different (two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). (F) Number of retrieved pups (p > 0.27, two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). (G) A decrease in parental care duration was found in +Cre females but did not reach the level of statistical significance (p > 0.15, two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). (H) Cumulative probability of pup retrieval. The p-value is shown in the panel (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). Error bars, standard error of the mean.

Cell ablation of OT neurons in both the PVH and SO recapitulates the OT cKO phenotypes

OT neurons release not only OT, but also other neurotransmitters or neuropeptides, such as glutamate [15]. If such non-OT ligands released from OT neurons have any additional functions over OT in labor, milk ejection, or the raising of pups, cell-type-specific ablation of OT neurons would exhibit more severe phenotypes than would those observed in OT cKO dams. To examine this possibility, we performed cell ablation of OT neurons by injecting taCasp3-encoding AAV [22] into both the PVH and SO of OTCre/+ mice (Fig 4A and 4B). As a result, the taCasp3-encoding AAV reduced the number of neurons expressing OT mRNA in the PVH and SO (Fig 4C and 4D) most likely because the virus induced cell death in OT neurons [22]. The females became pregnant, and the number of littered pups was not statistically different from that of the controls (Fig 4E). Similar to the OT cKO (Fig 1), we found that 33% (= 3/9) of the +taCasp3 dams failed to raise their pups at PPD 1 (Fig 4F). The dams with a smaller number of the remaining OT+ neurons in the SO were more likely to show the failure phenotype at PPD 1 (Fig 4G). We also found that neither the average pup weights in each dam nor the weight distribution of the pups was statistically different from the controls (Fig 4H and 4I). These results largely recapitulate the phenotypes observed in OT cKO in both the PVH and SO (Fig 1) without additional defects. These data do not suggest an additional role of non-OT ligands expressed in the OT neurons in pregnancy, parturition, or milk ejection.

Fig 4. Cell ablation of OT neurons in the PVH and SO leads to a failure of raising pups.

Fig 4

(A) Schematic of the viral injection. AAV-FLEx-taCasp3-TEVp or vehicle was injected into the bilateral PVH and SO. (B) Schematic of the timeline of the experiment. (C) Representative coronal sections. OT in situ staining is shown in magenta. Blue, DAPI. Scale bar, 20 μm. (D) Number of remaining OT+ neurons in the PVH (left) or SO (right). **p < 0.01, two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test. n = 7 and 9 mothers for vehicle and +taCasp3, respectively. (E) The number of pups born was not statistically different (two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). No dead pups were found. n = 7 and 9 mothers for vehicle and +taCasp3, respectively. (F) Survival rate of pups at PPD 1. n = 7 and 9 mothers for vehicle and +taCasp3, respectively. (G) Relationship between the success (black dots) or failure (orange dots) of raising pups at PPD 1 and the number of remaining OT+ neurons in PVH (x-axis) or SO (y-axis). Data from the same mice shown in D. (H) Average weight of pups per dam. Mothers in which all pups were dead at PPD 1 were excluded from +taCasp3. No statistical difference was found in vehicle and +taCasp3 (two-way ANOVA with repeated measurements). n = 7 and 6 for vehicle and +taCasp3, respectively. (I) Cumulative probability of weight of pups at PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9. Mothers in which all pups were dead at PPD 1 were excluded in +taCasp3. The p-value is shown in the panel (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). n = 58 and 41–44 pups from seven and six mothers for vehicle and +taCasp3, respectively. Error bars, standard error of the mean.

Loss of OT neurons from PVH and SO minimally affects maternal behaviors

To examine the functional role of OT neurons, including non-OT neurotransmitters or neuropeptides, we further analyzed the parental caregiving behaviors of mothers with cell ablation of OT neurons (Fig 5A and 5B) characterized in Fig 4. Similar to OT cKO in the PVH and SO (Fig 2), we found no major defects in the execution of caregiving behaviors (Fig 5C–5F), except that dams expressing taCasp3 required more time to retrieve pups (Fig 5G and 5H). Taken together, under the conditions of cell-type-specific ablation experiments, OT neurons were not necessary to execute maternal caregiving behaviors.

Fig 5. Grossly normal parental behaviors of mothers with cell ablation of OT neurons.

Fig 5

(A) Schematic of the viral injection. AAV-FLEx-taCasp3-TEVp or vehicle was injected into the bilateral PVH and SO. (B) Schematic of the timeline of the experiment. A behavioral assay was conducted at PPD 3. (C) Percentage of mothers showing attack, ignore or retrieve. Note that attack or ignore was not observed in our dataset. (D) Latency to the first investigation of pups was not statistically different (two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). (E) Number of retrieved pups. (F) Parental care duration was not statistically different (two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). (G) Cumulative probability of pup retrieval. The p-value is shown in the panel (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). (H) Cumulative probability of pup retrieval of vehicle dams (gray line), and +taCasp3 dams that exhibited success (black line) or failure (orange line) in raising pups at PPD 1 (***p < 0.001, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test with Bonferroni correction). n = 6 and 3 for the success and failure phenotypes, respectively. n = 7 and 9 for vehicle and +taCasp3 from the mice analyzed in Fig 4D, respectively. Orange dots indicate mothers with the failure phenotype. Error bars, standard error of the mean.

OT ligands from the SO are needed for the success of raising pups

The results of the cKO of the OT gene (Fig 1) and cell ablation of OT neurons (Fig 4) together imply that mothers with a smaller number of the remaining OT+ neurons in the SO are more likely to fail in raising pups at PPD 1 compared to that in the PVH. Given that our approach enables the cKO of the OT gene restricted to a single hypothalamic nucleus, first, we performed cKO of the OT gene selectively in the PVH (Fig 6A–6C). The number of littered pups was not significantly different (Fig 6D) and all dams successfully raised pups at PPD 1 (Fig 6E and 6F). We found no defects in the development of pups in the PVH-specific OT cKO mothers (Fig 6G and 6H).

Fig 6. OT expression in the PVH does not affect the survival of pups.

Fig 6

(A) Schematic of the viral injection. AAV-Cre or vehicle was injected into the bilateral PVH. (B) Schematic of the timeline of the experiment. (C) Number of remaining OT+ neurons in the PVH (left) or SO (right). **p < 0.01, two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test. n = 6 and 6 mothers for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. (D) The number of pups born was not statistically different (p > 0.26, two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). No dead pups were found. n = 6 and 6 mothers for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. (E) Survival rate of pups at PPD 1. (F) Relationship between the success (black dots) or failure (orange dots) of raising pups at PPD 1 and the number of remaining OT+ neurons in the PVH (x-axis) or SO (y-axis). Data from the same mice shown in C. (G) Average weight of pups per dam. No statistical difference was found in vehicle and +Cre (two-way ANOVA with repeated measurements). n = 6 and 6 for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. (H) Cumulative probability of weight of pups in PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9. The p-value is shown in the panel (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). n = 41 and 51 pups from 6 and 6 mothers for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. Error bars, standard error of the mean.

Next, we performed cKO of the OT gene in the SO (Fig 7A–7C). The number of littered pups was not statistically different (Fig 7D). Similar to the OT cKO in both the PVH and SO (Fig 1), 50% (= 4/8) of dams showed a failure in raising pups at PPD 1 (Fig 7E). As expected, dams with a smaller number of the remaining OT+ neurons in the SO, but not in the PVH, were more likely to show the failure phenotype: approximately 200 remaining OT+ neurons in the SO were needed for success in raising pups at PPD 1 (Fig 7F). These results suggest that OT+ neurons in the PVH and SO show differential contributions to pup survival. As described above, we measured the weight of pups at PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9 to analyze their growth. Overall, the growth of the pups was not largely different between +Cre and vehicle (Fig 7G and 7H).

Fig 7. OT expression in the SO is necessary for the survival of pups.

Fig 7

(A) Schematic of the viral injection. AAV-Cre or vehicle was injected into the bilateral SO. (B) Schematic of the timeline of the experiment. (C) Number of remaining OT+ neurons in the PVH (left) or SO (right). **p < 0.01, two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test. n = 6 and 8 mothers for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. (D) The number of pups born was not statistically different (p > 0.21, two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test). No dead pups were found. n = 6 and 8 mothers for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. (E) Survival rate of pups at PPD 1. n = 6 and 8 mothers for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. (F) Relationship between the success (black dots) or failure (orange dots) of raising pups at PPD 1 and the number of remaining OT+ neurons in the PVH (x-axis) or SO (y-axis). Data from the same mice shown in C. (G) Average weight of pups per dam. Mothers in which all pups were dead at PPD 1 were excluded from +Cre. No statistical difference was found in vehicle and +Cre (two-way ANOVA with repeated measurements). n = 6 and 4 for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. (H) Cumulative probability of weight of pups in PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9. Mothers in which all pups were dead at PPD 1 were excluded in +Cre. The p-value is shown in the panel (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test). n = 40 and 25 pups from six and four mothers for vehicle and +Cre, respectively. Error bars, standard error of the mean.

Discussion

Parturition and lactation are complex biological processes and OT has been considered to be critically involved in both [23, 24]. However, previous studies with whole-body KO of OT have reported that only milk ejection was severely impaired, whereas parturition was less dependent on OT [46]. Decades of studies have suggested that animals have mechanisms to maintain fitness in the presence of harmful mutations. Although this can be achieved by multiple strategies, one possible explanation for the dispensability of OT on the parturition can be the existence of compensatory mechanisms: whole-body KO of OT may enhance the expression of related gene(s) [9, 10], thereby compensating for the absence of OT. The findings of the present study do not support this explanation, given that cKO of the OT gene at the adult stage mostly phenocopied the whole-body KO. Furthermore, we showed that cell ablation of OT neurons resulted in similar phenotypes obtained from OT cKO. These findings, together with classical KO studies, suggest that OT is facilitatory but dispensable for parturition.

In the present study, we performed cKO of OT gene by injecting AAV-Cre into the PVH and/or SO. Our approach enables the removal of the OT gene restricted to the brain, and even to a single hypothalamic nucleus, providing a resolution that exceeds previous studies. By visualizing the mRNA of OT, we found that the number of remaining OT+ neurons in SO correlates well with the survival rate of pups (Figs 1I and 7F): the success of raising pups at PPD 1 requires more than 200 OT+ neurons in the SO, though this number may differ depending on the genetic background. What are the underlying mechanisms? During the milk ejection reflex, the pulsatile OT secretion necessary for the contraction of the mammary glands is mediated by synchronous bursts of OT neurons in the PVH and SO of both hemispheres [25, 26]. In one scenario, there is a pulse generator of synchronous spiking of OT neurons in the SO, the activity of which is then transmitted to all OT neurons, including those in the PVH. This intra- and inter-nucleus transmission of activity may be mediated by OT-to-OTR signaling [2729]. In this case, loss-of-function of OT neurons in the SO would impair the burst firing of OT neurons in the PVH. Alternatively, the OT neurons in the PVH may remain active even in the absence of OT release from the SO, but the total amount of OT released into the peripheral circulation is not sufficient for milk ejection. In this scenario, pituitary-projecting magnocellular neurons in the SO make a greater contribution to milk ejection [17, 30]. Recent advances in the optical recording of OT neurons during lactation [31, 32] may help explore these possibilities in future studies.

Our data revealed that if the pups survived at PPD 1, their growth was largely normal. This suggests that there is a bottleneck in the establishment of the milk ejection reflex by PPD 1. Fiber photometry-based imaging studies of OT neurons in lactating mice [32] and rats [31] have revealed that the amplitudes of pulsatile Ca2+ transients are the lowest at PPD 1 and increased afterward. These findings may explain why milk ejection at PPD 1 is the most sensitive to the perturbation of OT neurons: once milk ejection is achieved at PPD 1, the plasticity of OT neurons permits more efficient milk ejection as the pups grow.

In the present study, we showed that OT cKO or cell ablation of OT neurons led to delayed pup retrieval in the execution of parental behaviors in mothers, as well as a reduction in the expression of caregiving behaviors in virgin females. In principle, these effects could be due to the experimental procedures employed, such as the injection of AAVs or potential damage to the neural connections caused by the cutting of some afferent or efferent connections of OT neurons. However, negative control experiments that employed the same surgical procedures but just injected a vehicle (saline) showed no phenotype. The likely explanation is that the loss of OT ligands (Fig 2) or OT neurons (Fig 5) may reduce the reward value of pups, thereby delaying pup retrieval, as the connections from the OT neurons to the dopamine neurons in the ventral tegmental area have been documented in the context of social behaviors [33, 34]. Except for this relatively minor phenotype, all the OT cKO or OT neuron-ablated mothers showed normal parental behaviors. Although we cannot fully exclude the possibility that a small number of remaining OT neurons in our virus-based procedures may support these behaviors, the results are in clear contrast to the fathers, given that OT KO or OT cKO in the PVH lead to defective parental behaviors in fathers [16]. Our observations, together with classical whole-body KO studies, suggest that maternal behaviors are supported by multiple redundant neural systems that can compensate for the loss of OT functions, including the modulation of sensory systems [19, 35]. This likely echoes the evolutional trait of mammalian species that depends more on maternal care for survival during infancy [36]. The mechanisms of such a redundancy remain an open question. Future studies on how OT facilitates parental behaviors, based on the detailed input–output structures of OT neurons [17, 37], could help define how multiple redundant mechanisms for parental behaviors work in the maternal brain.

Materials and methods

Animals

Animals were housed under a 12-hour light/12-hour dark cycle with ad libitum access to food and water. Wild-type C57BL/6J mice were purchased from Japan SLC. OTflox/flox and OT–/–mice lines, described previously [16], were generated in C57BL/6J background. We chose the OTflox/–model to increase the efficiency of cKO (Figs 13, 6 and 7). If we had used the OTflox/flox mice for cKO, a small fraction of the flox alleles that do not experience recombination would easily mask the phenotypes due to the high expression of OT gene. OTCre/+ (Jax #024234), purchased from the Jackson Laboratory, was backcrossed more than five generations to C57BL/6J mouse. All the experimental procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the RIKEN Kobe branch (A2017-15-13).

Viral preparations

We obtained AAV serotype 9 hSyn-Cre from Addgene (#105555, 2.3 × 1013 genome particles [gp]/ml). AAV serotype 1 EF1a-FLEx-taCasp3-TEVp (5.8 × 1012 gp/ml) [22] was purchased from the University of North Carolina viral core.

Stereotactic injection

To target AAV into a specific brain region, stereotactic coordinates were defined for each brain region based on the Allen Mouse Brain Atlas [38]. Mice were anesthetized with 65 mg/kg ketamine (Daiichi Sankyo) and 13 mg/kg xylazine (X1251, Sigma-Aldrich) via intraperitoneal injection and head-fixed to stereotactic equipment (Narishige). The following coordinates were used (in mm from the bregma for anteroposterior [AP] and mediolateral [ML], and dorsoventral [DV] from the surface of the brain): PVH, AP –0.8, ML 0.2, DV 4.5; SO, AP –0.7, ML 1.2, DV 5.5. The injected volume of AAV was 200 nl at a speed of 50 nl/min. After the viral injection, the animal was returned to the home cage. Each viral injection and all subsequent experiments except Fig 1E–1G were conducted by two experimenters: experimenter 1 prepared two identical tubes containing either saline (vehicle) or solution containing AAV, and experimenter 2, who was blinded to the contents of the tubes, conducted the injections, behavioral assay, and data analysis.

Measurement of the duration of pregnancy and pup birth intervals

A virgin female (13 weeks old) individually housed for 5 weeks or longer (Figs 1, 6 and 7) or 2 weeks (Fig 4) after the viral injection was paired with a wild-type male. The next day, the male was removed from the cage and the vaginal plug was checked. Only the females that successfully formed a plug were used for further experiments. On the day of the delivery (PPD 0), typically 12–16 hours after the birth of pups, the number of pups was counted, and dead pups were removed from the cage. In the calculation of the survival rate of pups at PPD 1 (Figs 1H, 4F, 6E and 7E), the number of dead pups at PPD 0 was excluded. We did not normalize the number of pups, given that the number of pups born was not strongly correlated with the development of pups in our datasets (S1 Fig). As shown in Figs 1I, 2, 4G, 5 and 7, a dam with one or more living pups at PPD 1 was classified as a “success” in raising pups and as a “failure” if all pups were dead at PPD 1. Weight of pups were measured at PPD 3, 6, and 9, in units of 0.1 g. Of note, the genotype of pups born from OTflox/–mothers crossed with wild-type males should be either OT+/–or OTflox/+. We found that the ratio of OT+/–pups and OTflox/+ pups largely followed Mendel’s law and we did not find a statistical significance between mothers that received vehicle or AAV-Cre injection to the bilateral PVH (The ratio of OT+/–pups was 62.4 ± 10.4% and 53.1 ± 8.7% in vehicle and +Cre, respectively. p > 0.81, two-sided Mann–Whitney U-test. n = 6 mothers each). This observation suggests that the genotype of pups did not significantly influence our results.

To measure the pup birth intervals, 18.5 days after the formation of a vaginal plug, each pregnant female was moved to a transparent cage that contained a minimal amount of wood chips and shredded paper, with which the dam built its nest. Two cameras (Qwatch, I-O Data and DMK33UX273, The Imaging Source) were equipped under and on the side of the cage, respectively, to capture the entire cage, including the nest. Videotaping (15 frames/second for Qwatch and 4 frames/second for DMK33UX273) was started after adaptation (5 hours or longer). We defined the birth of each pup as the complete exposure of its entire body from the maternal vagina. In the calculation of the distribution of pup birth intervals, we excluded data from one pup with an interval of longer than 10 hours. Meanwhile, the dam moved freely in the cage, including foraging.

Parental behavioral assay

Assay for mothers

A behavioral assay with mothers was conducted using a similar procedure as described previously [16]. In brief, a virgin female (13 weeks old) individually housed for 5 weeks or longer (Fig 2) or 2 weeks (Fig 5) after the viral injection was paired with a male. The next day, the male was removed from the cage and the vaginal plug was checked. Only the females that successfully formed a plug were used for further experiments. A behavioral assay for the mothers was conducted at PPD 3. For the mothers that successfully fed their pups, all pups were removed from the home cage 6–8 hours before the assay, leaving only the mothers. Unfamiliar wild-type pups (pups unrelated to the resident mother) were used for the assay. Although we prepared three behavioral categories (“Attack”, “Ignore”, and “Retrieve”) as defined previously [16], in our dataset, all dams showed “Retrieve”. The following behaviors were further scored: latency to investigate (time after the introduction of pups to the first investigation), pup retrieval, grooming, and crouching. Even if a dam exhibited grooming behavior during crouching, it was only measured as crouching. The duration of animals undergoing either grooming, crouching, or retrieving was scored as parental care duration.

Assay for virgin females

Virgin females (Fig 3) were prepared using a similar procedure as described previously [21]. A virgin female (13 weeks old) individually housed for 5 weeks after the viral injection was moved to the cage that contains a resident wild-type mother rearing the PPD 1 pups. The virgin female was allowed to co-house for 6 consecutive days. One day before the assay, the virgin female was moved to a new cage. The behavioral assay with the virgin females was the same as that with mothers described above.

In situ hybridization

Mice were anesthetized with isoflurane and perfused with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) followed by 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) in PBS. The brain was post-fixed with 4% PFA overnight. Twenty-micron coronal brain sections were obtained from the entire PVH and SO (typically 32 sections per brain) using a cryostat (Leica), and all sections were subjected to the staining and cell counting. Fluorescent in situ hybridization was performed as previously described [16, 39]. In brief, sections were treated with TSA-plus Cyanine 3 (NEL744001KT, Akoya Biosciences) or TSA-plus biotin (NEL749A001KT, Akoya Biosciences) followed by streptavidin-Alexa Fluor 488 (S32354, Invitrogen). The primers (5’– 3’) to produce RNA probes were: OT, forward, AAGGTCGGTCTGGGCCGGAGA, reverse, TAAGCCAAGCAGGCAGCAAGC, Cre, forward, CCAAGAAGAAGAGGAAGGTGTC, reverse, ATCCCCAGAAATGCCAGATTAC [16]. Brain images were acquired using an Olympus BX53 microscope equipped with a 10× (N.A. 0.4) objective lens. Cells were counted manually using the ImageJ Cell Counter plugin.

Data analysis

All mean values are reported as mean ± standard error of the mean. The statistical details of each experiment, including the statistical tests used, the exact value of n, and what n represents, are shown in each figure legend. The p-values are shown in each figure legend or panel; nonsignificant values are not noted.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

(A) Relationship between the average weight of pups and the number of remaining OT+ neurons in the PVH and SO (left), PVH (middle), and SO (right). Data was obtained from six OTflox/− mice that received AAV-Cre injection into the bilateral PVH and SO. Left, R2 = 0.28, 0.10, and 0.38 for PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9, respectively, p > 0.19 for all PPDs. Middle, R2 = 0.27, 0.07, and 0.37 for PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9, respectively, p > 0.20 for all PPDs. Right, R2 = 0.29, 0.18, and 0.37 for PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9, respectively, p > 0.19 for all PPDs. (B) In our datasets, the number of pups born was not strongly correlated with the development of pups (R2 = 0.01, 0.10, and 0.10 for PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9, respectively. p > 0.47 for all PPDs). Data were obtained from seven OTflox/− mice that received vehicle injection into the bilateral PVH and SO. Note that data points from two mothers of 8 litters nearly overlap.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Satsuki Irie for her technical support. We also thank Kumi Kuroda and the members of the Miyamichi Lab for critical reading of the manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

K.I. was supported by the RIKEN Special Postdoctoral Researchers Program (https://www.riken.jp/en/careers/programs/spdr/), a grant from the Kao Foundation for Arts and Sciences (https://www.kao-foundation.or.jp/english.html), and Japan society promotion science KAKENHI (19J00403 and 19K16303) (https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/) K.M. was supported by Japan society promotion science KAKENHI (20K20589 and 21H02587) (https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The funder (RIKEN Special Postdoctoral Researchers Program) provided support in the form of salaries for the last author [KI], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of the author are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

References

  • 1.Froemke RC, Young LJ. Oxytocin, Neural Plasticity, and Social Behavior. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2021;44:359–81. doi: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-102320-102847 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Caldwell HK, Aulino EA, Freeman AR, Miller TV, Witchey SK. Oxytocin and behavior: Lessons from knockout mice. Dev Neurobiol. 2017;77(2):190–201. doi: 10.1002/dneu.22431 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Insel TR. The challenge of translation in social neuroscience: a review of oxytocin, vasopressin, and affiliative behavior. Neuron. 2010;65(6):768–79. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nishimori K, Young LJ, Guo Q, Wang Z, Insel TR, Matzuk MM. Oxytocin is required for nursing but is not essential for parturition or reproductive behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93(21):11699–704. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.21.11699 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tsuneoka Y, Yoshihara C, Ohnishi R, Yoshida S, Miyazawa E, Yamada M, et al. Oxytocin Facilitates Allomaternal Behavior under Stress in Laboratory Mice. eNeuro. 2022;9(1). doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0405-21.2022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Young WS 3rd, Shepard E, Amico J, Hennighausen L, Wagner KU, LaMarca ME, et al. Deficiency in mouse oxytocin prevents milk ejection, but not fertility or parturition. J Neuroendocrinol. 1996;8(11):847–53. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2826.1996.05266.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Young LJ, Winslow JT, Wang Z, Gingrich B, Guo Q, Matzuk MM, et al. Gene targeting approaches to neuroendocrinology: oxytocin, maternal behavior, and affiliation. Horm Behav. 1997;31(3):221–31. doi: 10.1006/hbeh.1997.1377 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ragnauth AK, Devidze N, Moy V, Finley K, Goodwillie A, Kow LM, et al. Female oxytocin gene-knockout mice, in a semi-natural environment, display exaggerated aggressive behavior. Genes Brain Behav. 2005;4(4):229–39. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2005.00118.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.El-Brolosy MA, Kontarakis Z, Rossi A, Kuenne C, Gunther S, Fukuda N, et al. Genetic compensation triggered by mutant mRNA degradation. Nature. 2019;568(7751):193–7. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1064-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ma Z, Zhu P, Shi H, Guo L, Zhang Q, Chen Y, et al. PTC-bearing mRNA elicits a genetic compensation response via Upf3a and COMPASS components. Nature. 2019;568(7751):259–63. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1057-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Leng G, Sabatier N. Oxytocin—The Sweet Hormone? Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2017;28(5):365–76. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2017.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Onaka T, Takayanagi Y. Role of oxytocin in the control of stress and food intake. J Neuroendocrinol. 2019;31(3):e12700. doi: 10.1111/jne.12700 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sutton AK, Myers MG Jr., Olson DP. The Role of PVH Circuits in Leptin Action and Energy Balance. Annu Rev Physiol. 2016;78:207–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Inada K, Tsujimoto K, Yoshida M, Nishimori K, Miyamichi K. Oxytocin signaling in the posterior hypothalamus prevents hyperphagic obesity in mice. Elife. 2022;11. doi: 10.7554/eLife.75718 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Xu S, Yang H, Menon V, Lemire AL, Wang L, Henry FE, et al. Behavioral state coding by molecularly defined paraventricular hypothalamic cell type ensembles. Science. 2020;370(6514). doi: 10.1126/science.abb2494 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Inada K, Hagihara M, Tsujimoto K, Abe T, Konno A, Hirai H, et al. Plasticity of neural connections underlying oxytocin-mediated parental behaviors of male mice. Neuron. 2022;110(12):2009–23 e5. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2022.03.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Son S, Manjila SB, Newmaster KT, Wu YT, Vanselow DJ, Ciarletta M, et al. Whole-Brain Wiring Diagram of Oxytocin System in Adult Mice. J Neurosci. 2022;42(25):5021–33. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0307-22.2022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pedersen CA, Ascher JA, Monroe YL, Prange AJ Jr., Oxytocin induces maternal behavior in virgin female rats. Science. 1982;216(4546):648–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Marlin BJ, Mitre M, D’Amour J A, Chao MV, Froemke RC. Oxytocin enables maternal behaviour by balancing cortical inhibition. Nature. 2015;520(7548):499–504. doi: 10.1038/nature14402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pedersen CA, Vadlamudi SV, Boccia ML, Amico JA. Maternal behavior deficits in nulliparous oxytocin knockout mice. Genes Brain Behav. 2006;5(3):274–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2005.00162.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Carcea I, Caraballo NL, Marlin BJ, Ooyama R, Riceberg JS, Mendoza Navarro JM, et al. Oxytocin neurons enable social transmission of maternal behaviour. Nature. 2021;596(7873):553–7. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03814-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yang CF, Chiang MC, Gray DC, Prabhakaran M, Alvarado M, Juntti SA, et al. Sexually dimorphic neurons in the ventromedial hypothalamus govern mating in both sexes and aggression in males. Cell. 2013;153(4):896–909. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.04.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Armstrong WE. Central nervous system control of oxytocin secretion during lactation. Physiology of Reproduction. 2015:527–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Brunton PJ, Russell JA. Maternal bain adaptations in pegnancy. Physiology of Reproduction. 2015:1957–2026. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Belin V, Moos F. Paired recordings from supraoptic and paraventricular oxytocin cells in suckled rats: recruitment and synchronization. J Physiol. 1986;377:369–90. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1986.sp016192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Belin V, Moos F, Richard P. Synchronization of oxytocin cells in the hypothalamic paraventricular and supraoptic nuclei in suckled rats: direct proof with paired extracellular recordings. Exp Brain Res. 1984;57(1):201–3. doi: 10.1007/BF00231147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Neumann I, Koehler E, Landgraf R, Summy-Long J. An oxytocin receptor antagonist infused into the supraoptic nucleus attenuates intranuclear and peripheral release of oxytocin during suckling in conscious rats. Endocrinology. 1994;134(1):141–8. doi: 10.1210/endo.134.1.8275928 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Freund-Mercier MJ, Richard P. Electrophysiological evidence for facilitatory control of oxytocin neurones by oxytocin during suckling in the rat. J Physiol. 1984;352:447–66. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1984.sp015302 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rossoni E, Feng J, Tirozzi B, Brown D, Leng G, Moos F. Emergent synchronous bursting of oxytocin neuronal network. PLoS Comput Biol. 2008;4(7):e1000123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zhang B, Qiu L, Xiao W, Ni H, Chen L, Wang F, et al. Reconstruction of the Hypothalamo-Neurohypophysial System and Functional Dissection of Magnocellular Oxytocin Neurons in the Brain. Neuron. 2021;109(2):331–46 e7. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.10.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Thirtamara Rajamani K, Leithead AB, Kim M, Barbier M, Peruggia M, Niblo K, et al. Efficiency of cell-type specific and generic promoters in transducing oxytocin neurons and monitoring their neural activity during lactation. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):22541. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-01818-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yukinaga H, Hagihara M, Tsujimoto K, Chiang HL, Kato S, Kobayashi K, et al. Recording and manipulation of the maternal oxytocin neural activities in mice. Curr Biol. 2022;32(17):3821–9 e6. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2022.06.083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hung LW, Neuner S, Polepalli JS, Beier KT, Wright M, Walsh JJ, et al. Gating of social reward by oxytocin in the ventral tegmental area. Science. 2017;357(6358):1406–11. doi: 10.1126/science.aan4994 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sgritta M, Dooling SW, Buffington SA, Momin EN, Francis MB, Britton RA, et al. Mechanisms Underlying Microbial-Mediated Changes in Social Behavior in Mouse Models of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Neuron. 2019;101(2):246–59 e6. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.11.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Schiavo JK, Valtcheva S, Bair-Marshall CJ, Song SC, Martin KA, Froemke RC. Innate and plastic mechanisms for maternal behaviour in auditory cortex. Nature. 2020;587(7834):426–31. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2807-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Dulac C O ’Connell LA, Wu Z. Neural control of maternal and paternal behaviors. Science. 2014;345(6198):765–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Freda SN, Priest MF, Badong D, Xiao L, Liu Y, Kozorovitskiy Y. Brainwide input-output architecture of paraventricular oxytocin and vasopressin neurons. bioRxiv. 2022:2022.01.17.476652. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lein ES, Hawrylycz MJ, Ao N, Ayres M, Bensinger A, Bernard A, et al. Genome-wide atlas of gene expression in the adult mouse brain. Nature. 2007;445(7124):168–76. doi: 10.1038/nature05453 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ishii KK, Osakada T, Mori H, Miyasaka N, Yoshihara Y, Miyamichi K, et al. A Labeled-Line Neural Circuit for Pheromone-Mediated Sexual Behaviors in Mice. Neuron. 2017;95(1):123–37 e8. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.05.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Michael Schubert

8 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-26274Dispensability of Oxytocin for Parturition and Maternal Behaviors by Conditional Knockout MicePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Miyamichi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that comprehensively addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 23 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael Schubert

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"K.I. was supported by the RIKEN Special Postdoctoral Researchers Program (https://www.riken.jp/en/careers/programs/spdr/),  a grant from the Kao Foundation for Arts and Sciences (https://www.kao-foundation.or.jp/english.html), and Japan society promotion science KAKENHI (19J00403 and 19K16303) (https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/)

K.M. was supported by Japan society promotion science  (20K20589 and 21H02587) (https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

We note that one or more of the authors is affiliated with the funding organization, indicating the funder may have had some role in the design, data collection, analysis or preparation of your manuscript for publication; in other words, the funder played an indirect role through the participation of the co-authors. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please do the following:

a. Review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. These amendments should be made in the online form.

b. Confirm in your cover letter that you agree with the following statement, and we will change the online submission form on your behalf: 

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper by Hagihara et al. reports interesting new findings on the role of oxytocin in regulating parturition, breastfeeding and maternal behavior in female mice. The Authors are leaders in this field of research and have published outstanding papers on oxytocin and reproduction. Here, by selectively deleting oxytocin, or oxytocinergic neurons, in hypothalamic PVN and/or SO nuclei, they confirm that oxytocin is dispensable for parturition and maternal care but also show that the milk ejection role of oxytocin is specifically supported by SO oxytocinergic neurons. Collectively, the paper is well conceived and well written, the methods are adequate. However, some points should be tackled by the Authors before recommending publication.

Major point

In my opinion, the major result of the paper, that oxytocin neurons of the hypothalamic SO nucleus are specifically involved in milk ejection, especially at the onset of lactation, should be confirmed by selectively deleting oxytocin in the PVN. In these mice, according to the Authors’ hypothesis, a normal, or almost-normal, breastfeeding behavior should be observed. This is the most outstanding result of the paper, and the title could be changed or implemented

Minor points

Throughout the manuscript the Authors claim to possible compensatory mechanisms (“genetic compensation”, “enhance the expression of related genes” … which genes?), that in fully oxytocin KO mice could hinder some phenotypes. They should be clearer, and specifically explain what they mean.

In this context (Introduction), why “PVH-specific OT cKO mice show hyperphagic obesity” is not clear to the reader if the Authors do not specify that OT also has a role in food intake and energy balance in adult animals.

The wide readership of the Journal may be not so confident with the mouse models created and studied in the present investigation. In addition to this, the Materials and Method section is at the end of the manuscript. So, a few sentences in the Result section, better describing the procedures used for obtaining the selective conditional KO mice, could render the paper easier to read and meaningful.

When discussing the possible effects of oxytocin on dopaminergic neurons of the ventral tegmental area and rewarding mechanisms, but also concerning data obtained in the present paper, the Authors should also take into consideration the possibility that some phenotypes could be due to a some extent to cutting of afferent, or efferent, projections to, or from, the SO and/or PVN nuclei and to the involvement of glial cells.

Reviewer #2: Oxytocin is necessary for milk let-down and facilitates maternal retrieval in rodents in the transition from nulliparous to parental. The main sources of oxytocin are the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus and the supraoptic nucleus of the hypothalamus. In the mid-1990’s the first knockout studies of oxytocin demonstrated an absence of milk-letdown and impairments in social behavior in congenital whole-body knockouts. In the current report, the authors evaluate the site-specific role of oxytocin using conditional genetic strategies in primiparous female mice.

Strengths:

This is an interesting report that contributes to our understanding of different hypothalamic populations in physiology and behavior.

Major weaknesses:

On line 139-140, the authors state: “ These results suggest that OT+ neurons in the PVH and SO show differential contributions to pup survival.” They do not have a full dataset to support this claim. They do show that conditional deletion of OT from the SO is sufficient to recapitulate deletion from whole body (prior literature) or their conditional deletion from SO AND PVH. There is a missing experiment and result: to support their claim as quoted above, they need to show that conditional deletion of OT from the PVH does not recapitulate the phenotype. This is a likely outcome, but not demonstrated conclusively here.

Additionally, the by using primiparous females during retrieval testing and not virgins, the manuscript fails to capture the impact of oxytocin in the transition from inexperienced to experienced maternal retrieval behavior. It is well-established that inexperienced virgins are likely to ignore pups in their first interactions with them. However, once pregnant and delivered, primiparous dams very quickly learn to retrieve pups. Elevated estrogens from pregnancy and enhanced oxytocin seem to facilitate this process. Once maternal, retrieval behavior is established and less vulnerable to oxytocin manipulations. In this report, the authors have chosen to test their hypothesis in females who have gone through pregnancy- females who will already behave maternally and for which oxytocin is less important. Had they really wanted to evaluate a site specific contribution of the SON or PVN OT to pup retrieval, they should have tested their retrieval behavior in virgins. Contextualizing their findings with others’ work in this area should include a discussion of Rich et al (Rich ME, deCárdenas EJ, Lee HJ, Caldwell HK (2014) Impairments in the Initiation of Maternal Behavior in Oxytocin Receptor Knockout Mice. PLOS ONE 9(6): e98839, and Carcea et al (Carcea, I., Caraballo, N.L., Marlin, B.J. et al. Oxytocin neurons enable social transmission of maternal behaviour. Nature 596, 553–557 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03814-7)

Minor weaknesses:

In the abstract, the language ending on line 38 should be clarified: “We found that cell ablation of oxytocin neurons leads to no additional abnormalities over the oxytocin conditional knockout, suggesting that non-oxytocin ligands expressed by oxytocin neurons have negligible functions” on the responses measured in this report. “on the responses measured in this report” should be added as clarifying language.

The presentation of the figures makes it unclear if the animals used in figures 1 and 2 are the same as in figures 4 and 5. If they are the same, it makes more sense to combine the figures. If they are not the same, then it would be important to show validation of cKO for this additional cohort of animals. If the figures get unwieldy with multiple panels, the following current figure panels seem unnecessary: Figure 1K, Figure 2I, Figure 3H, Figure 4C, Figure 5C

More details of methods should be included instead of solely referencing prior papers. For example, for the ISH, probe details should be included.

It is unclear why the OTflox/- was necessary or an improvement over OTflox/flox. The rationale for this choice should be explained.

How were cells counted? How many sections per side per animal?

“In situ hybridization” would be a better section heading in the methods than “histochemistry”

The statistical analysis for pup growth should be a repeated measures ANOVA assuming that the animals are traceable as individuals overtime.

The cKO model uses oxytocin floxed in the context of an Oxt knockout a allele bred with males who are wild type. This breeding strategy would produce wild-type and heterozygous offspring. It is unclear what the impact of an interaction between pup genotype and mom genotype might be. This should be addressed in the discussion.

In figure 2 the authors use oxytocin in situ hybridization to evaluate the effectiveness of the caspase virus which clearly shows a reduction in oxytocin. However, their claim is that the caspase method reduces the oxytocin cell population rather than just the oxytocin mRNA. Ideally, they would show evidence of cell loss rather than just oxytocin mRNA loss. Is there a significant reduction in the DAPI positive cell density in the PVN and SON?

There appears to be a lot of variability in the pup growth across ages in virus treated females. Given that the remaining OT+ neurons are associated with pup survival, it would be interesting to probe if the remaining oxytocin neurons in the PVN or SON of dams predict pup growth for pups that do survive.

The lack of a virus control is unfortunate.

Were the litters normalized to the same size? Litter size impacts pup growth- too few pups and too many pups reduce per pup weight. This should probably be modeled. This is particularly important due to the influence of ventral stimulation (intensity of which is influence by the number of pups) which stimulates the Ferguson reflex for milk let-down. Is it possible that the KO is less able to modulate pup growth based on litter size?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Michael Schubert

28 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-26274R1The Importance of Oxytocin Neurons in the Supraoptic Nucleus for Breastfeeding in MicePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Miyamichi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the point raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 14 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael Schubert

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed the original reviews. In the new Figure 3 F, the distribution of the data indicate the possibility that the data needs a non-parametric mann-whitney U test rather than a parametric t-test.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 17;18(3):e0283152. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283152.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Mar 2023

Response to Reviewer #2:

We are greatly thankful to this reviewer for a positive evaluation of our revision and for providing invaluable suggestions on the statistical analysis. Following a comprehensive analysis of the data structure, we have made the decision to replace the student t-test with a two-sided Mann-Whitney U-test for the following data sets: Fig. 1D, E, F, Fig. 2D, F, Fig. 3C, E, F, G, Fig. 4D, E, Fig. 5D, F, Fig. 6C, D, Fig. 7C, D. It is our belief that this alteration will lead to an enhancement in the statistical accuracy of our results. Importantly, our original conclusions remain unchanged.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Hagihara et al response to the reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Michael Schubert

3 Mar 2023

The Importance of Oxytocin Neurons in the Supraoptic Nucleus for Breastfeeding in Mice

PONE-D-22-26274R2

Dear Dr. Miyamichi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michael Schubert

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Michael Schubert

8 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-26274R2

The Importance of Oxytocin Neurons in the Supraoptic Nucleus for Breastfeeding in Mice

Dear Dr. Miyamichi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Michael Schubert

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    (A) Relationship between the average weight of pups and the number of remaining OT+ neurons in the PVH and SO (left), PVH (middle), and SO (right). Data was obtained from six OTflox/− mice that received AAV-Cre injection into the bilateral PVH and SO. Left, R2 = 0.28, 0.10, and 0.38 for PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9, respectively, p > 0.19 for all PPDs. Middle, R2 = 0.27, 0.07, and 0.37 for PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9, respectively, p > 0.20 for all PPDs. Right, R2 = 0.29, 0.18, and 0.37 for PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9, respectively, p > 0.19 for all PPDs. (B) In our datasets, the number of pups born was not strongly correlated with the development of pups (R2 = 0.01, 0.10, and 0.10 for PPD 3, PPD 6, and PPD 9, respectively. p > 0.47 for all PPDs). Data were obtained from seven OTflox/− mice that received vehicle injection into the bilateral PVH and SO. Note that data points from two mothers of 8 litters nearly overlap.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Hagihara et al response to the reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Hagihara et al response to the reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES