Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0244033. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244033

An acute dose of intranasal oxytocin rapidly increases maternal communication and maintains maternal care in primiparous postpartum California mice

Caleigh D Guoynes 1,*, Catherine A Marler 1
Editor: Cheryl S Rosenfeld2
PMCID: PMC8061985  PMID: 33886559

Abstract

Maternal-offspring communication and care are essential for offspring survival. Oxytocin (OXT) is known for its role in initiation of maternal care, but whether OXT can rapidly influence maternal behavior or ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs; above 50 kHz) has not been examined. To test for rapid effects of OXT, California mouse mothers were administered an acute intranasal (IN) dose of OXT (0.8 IU/kg) or saline followed by a separation test with three phases: habituation with pups in a new testing chamber, separation via a wire mesh, and finally reunion with pups. We measured maternal care, maternal USVs, and pup USVs. In mothers, we primarily observed simple sweep USVs, a short downward sweeping call around 50 kHz, and in pups we only observed pup whines, a long call with multiple harmonics ranging from 20 kHz to 50 kHz. We found that IN OXT rapidly and selectively enhanced the normal increase in maternal simple sweep USVs when mothers had physical access to pups (habituation and reunion), but not when mothers were physically separated from pups. Frequency of mothers’ and pups’ USVs were correlated upon reunion, but IN OXT did not influence this correlation. Finally, mothers given IN OXT showed more efficient pup retrieval/carrying and greater total maternal care upon reunion. Behavioral changes were specific to maternal behaviors (e.g. retrievals) as mothers given IN OXT did not differ from controls in stress-related behaviors (e.g. freezing). Overall, these findings highlight the rapid effects and context-dependent effect a single treatment with IN OXT has on both maternal USV production and offspring care.

Introduction

Quality of maternal care has significant impacts on offspring survival outcomes across many mammalian species [15]. These studies underscore the importance of maternal behavior from an evolutionary perspective. However, the proximate mechanisms that reinforce maternal care remain more elusive. Several studies in rodents illustrate that pup whines, high energy calls produced by pups, quickly and reliably elicit maternal care [611]. Other studies, however, show that mothers are more apt to exhibit care in response to stressful events or disturbances and that pup calls do not influence their care above and beyond the disturbance [12]. It has also been shown that female house mice prefer calls from their own pups and can locate their own faster than alien pups [13]. These studies show that pup whines can elicit changes in maternal behavior. However, the role of maternal vocalizations in this relationship has not been studied. Adult rats, including mothers, make spontaneous vocalizations that typically occur above 50 kHz when presented with drug and social [14, 15]. The association of reward with these calls in rats is interpreted as an indicator of a positive internal state. In mothers, USVs may indicate maternal motivation but could also reinforce maternal care and the mother-offspring bond [16, 17] or reduce maternal anxiety [18].

Complementing the stimulus of maternal and pup vocalizations, the neuropeptide hormone oxytocin (OXT) plays an important role in processing and producing behaviors that support maternal care. OXT modulates many social behaviors including bonding and parental care [1923]. During mammalian birth, OXT increases to stimulate parturition and milk let-down in mothers; this increase was likely co-opted during evolution to also facilitate maternal care [2427]. Immediately after parturition, rising levels of peripheral estrogen [28] prime the neural substrates that respond to OXT to initiate maternal behaviors in rats [26]. Additionally, OXT knockout mice have greater latency to onset of maternal behaviors [29]. In the brain, OXT antagonists blocked maternal behavior after natural delivery in pregnant rats [30]. This reveals that central OXT is important for initiating maternal care in rodents. Acute activation of maternal care by OXT is indirectly supported by an optogenetics study in which dopamine neurons were activated in the anteroventral periventricular nucleus (AVPV) that monosynaptically connects to and activates OXT neurons in the paraventricular nucleus (PVN), resulting in enhanced maternal care [31]. OXT receptor densities are also important. In rats genetically selected for differences in maternal care, high grooming compared to low grooming females had more OXT receptors in the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, medial preoptic area, central nucleus of the amygdala, and these differences were observed in maternally-experienced females that were either non-lactating and lactating [32, 33]. Collectively, these studies provide strong evidence that OXT plays an important role in activating and coordinating maternal care.

OXT also plays a role in the production and perception of vocalizations. In mice and other rodents, the majority of vocalizations occur above 20 kHz and are called ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs) [3437]. In OXT knockout mice, OXT null pups emit fewer USVs in response to separation from their mother compared to wildtype mice [38]. This suggests that OXT may enhance pup communication with their mother. OXT can also improve the signal-to-noise ratio in mothers responding to pup calls via mediation of temporal inhibition and excitation in the left auditory cortex of female mice, leading to increased pup retrievals [39]. These data provide evidence that OXT is changing the perception and social salience of pup calls, leading to increased maternal care. Furthermore, in humans, the OXT receptor has a polymorphism (rs53576) with functional significance. The genotype GG (presumably produces more OXTRs compared to AG or AA genotypes) is associated with better ability to discriminate content of language under noisy conditions [40]. This suggests that across taxa, OXT may play an important neuromodulatory role in promoting sensory processing and behavioral response to social auditory information.

A key social behavior that has previously not been measured is maternal vocalizations. We speculated that mothers modulate vocalization quantity or type when interacting with their offspring and that maternal vocalizations would be associated with maternal care. Moreover, we predicted that OXT would modulating these vocalizations.

The California mouse (Peromyscus californicus) is a strictly monogamous, biparental rodent species well-suited to examine how OXT modulates auditory sensory processing, vocal production, and social behavior. California mice have a diverse, well-characterized repertoire of ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs) including simple sweeps, complex sweeps, syllable vocalizations, barks, and pup whines [4144]. Previous recordings between mothers and pups indicated that the primary call types from mothers were maternal simple sweeps and the primary call type from pups were pup whines. While this suggests that these two call types are important in mother-pup contexts, both maternal simple sweeps and pup whines have also been recorded in other social contexts [43, 45, 46].

In the current study, we aimed to address the gaps in our understanding of proximate mechanisms that contribute to maternal care by determining the association between maternal vocalizations and maternal care and whether an acute dose of IN OXT in primiparous female California mice could rapidly increase both maternal vocalizations and care. Previous studies have shown that IN OXT alters behavior within five minutes of administration [47] and can have behavioral effects that can persist for 30–50 min after administration [48]. As we were not manipulating the OXT system in the pups, we did not expect to see an effect of OXT on pup whine USVs. We hypothesized that 1) maternal care would be associated with maternal USVs and that 2) IN OXT would have a positive effect on maternal care. Specifically, we predicted that during our behavioral paradigm, IN OXT would increase maternal care, increase maternal USV production, and enhance the correlation between pup USVs and maternal USVs and that physical separation would disrupt the pro-social effects of IN OXT.

Methods

Animals

University of Wisconsin-Madison Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approved this research. We used 24 primiparous postpartum female P. californicus aged 5–10 months because of ages of previously unpaired females available within our colony. Females across this age range also show equivalent corticosterone responses to corticotrophin releasing hormone and dexamethasone challenge [49], suggesting that females within this age range have comparable glucocorticoid responsiveness. Females were pair-housed (1 female, 1 male, and 1–3 pups per cage; 48 × 27 × 16 cm) under a 14L: 10D light cycle. Animals were maintained in accordance with the National Institute of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Female and male mice were randomly paired to an unrelated mouse and were housed in their home cage. After females were visibly pregnant, cages were checked once daily for pups and gave birth in the home cages. Mothers were randomly assigned to either the saline control group (N = 11) or the IN OXT group (N = 13). The mode of pups per litter was two, and there was a range of pups per litter (1–3). Number of pups was considered for use as a covariate, but in the statistical models, including this variable a) did not explain additional variance and b) reduced the power of the statistical comparison. Pup number across treatments was very similar—average number of pups for mothers in the saline condition was 2.11, and average number of pups for mothers in the OXT condition was 1.91.

Intranasal oxytocin preparation

Mothers were infused intranasally with either sterile saline control or IN OXT (0.8 IU/kg) (Bachem, Torrance, California). The IN OXT dose was equivalent to doses used in other rodent species [5052] and similar to weight-adjusted doses used in clinical studies examining the effects of IN OXT on social deficits in autism [47]. IN OXT was dissolved in saline and prepared in one batch that was aliquoted into small plastic tubes and frozen at 20°C. IN OXT was defrosted just prior to administration. A blunt cannula needle (33-gauge, 2.8 mm length; Plastics One, Roanoke, Virginia) was attached to cannula tubing, flushed, and filled with the compound, then attached to an airtight Hamilton syringe (Bachem, Torrance, California). The animal was scruffed and 25 uL of compound was expelled dropwise through the cannula needle, alternating between left and right nostrils for each mouse. Rodents are obligate nose-breathers and thus the solution was quickly absorbed into the nasal mucosa (~10seconds). One person conducted all IN OXT administrations throughout the entire procedure to maintain consistency in handling and IN OXT infusion.

We chose to use the method of intranasal administration of IN OXT for two primary reasons. (1) IN OXT is used in clinical studies and is less invasive, does not require special transporters for the molecule, and is presumed to be less stressful compared to intracerebroventricular [53]. (2) IN OXT shows similar behavioral effects as centrally administered OXT, increases CSF and plasma concentrations of OXT, and reaches the relevant brain areas in both humans and animal models [5458]. Several studies have also shown changes in plasma OXT concentrations that peak between 15 to 30 min post-administration [59, 60]. These results suggest IN OXT passes through the blood-brain barrier to exert central effects with minimal stress on the animal. In California mice, behavioral effects of IN OXT are consistent with the outcomes of central OXT manipulations suggesting that IN OXT is reaching the brain [61, 62]. Other studies indicate that some of the effects of IN OXT are acting through peripheral mechanisms [6365]. Regardless of whether IN OXT is directly targeting the brain, is acting through peripheral mechanisms, or a combination of both, IN OXT has been shown to rapidly alter social behavior in adult California mice [66].

Behavioral testing and USV recording

In order to test the effects of IN OXT on acute maternal care, we conducted this experiment in a novel recording chamber where mothers and pups could be briefly isolated from the father. Separation from the mate may be a mild stressor but would occur in natural populations in response to competing demands such as pup care, foraging and defending territories. Moreover, California mice do not exhibit a change in short- or long-term paternal care in response to corticosterone [67], show limited correlations between individual baseline corticosterone levels and behavior [68], parents exhibit blunted behavioral response to predator odor stress [69], and diel corticosterone cycle between single mothers and paired mothers does not differ [70]. While we cannot exclude an effect of a baseline level of stress, it is both a normal experience for these mice in the wild, and we do not expect corticosterone to influence the results of our current experiment above and beyond our IN OXT manipulation.

On postnatal day (PND) two to three, fathers were temporarily removed from the home cage, and the home cage with the mother and her pups was transferred to a behavioral testing room. In the behavioral testing room, mothers were randomly selected to receive 25 microliters of either 0.8 IU/kg IN OXT or saline control intranasally. Immediately after dosing, mothers and pups were placed into one side of a partitioned two-chambered apparatus (45.0 cm × 30.0 cm × 30.0 cm) that contained a circular opening (3.8 cm in diameter, center of opening 7 cm from the side wall) covered by a wire mesh (Fig 1A). This apparatus, like their home cages, had approximately 1/2 inch of aspen shavings covering the entire floor. Microphones sensitive to ultrasonic frequencies (described below) were placed on each side of the divider, such that the microphones were far enough apart to identify the source (chamber) of the calls [71] (Fig 1A).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

(A) Schematic for experimental design. Mother and pup (PND 2–3) groups were temporarily removed from their home cage and placed in the right side of two-chambered apparatus (five min) to habituate to the testing arena. Next, pups were moved from the right chamber and placed into the left chamber (three min). Lastly, the researchers lifted the mesh gate separating the right and left chambers, allowing mother-pup interactions (five min). Animals not to scale in diagram. (B) Ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs) on a spectrogram. Pup whines have multiple harmonics, a peak frequency around 20 kHz, and downward modulation at the end of the call that distinguish these calls from adult syllable vocalizations. Maternal simple sweeps have short downward-sweeping vocalizations that sweep through multiple frequencies, typically between 80 kHz and 40 kHz.

For each test, there were always two researchers present who coordinated activation of the audio software and the video camera at the same time using visual cues. This coordination allowed us to subsequently compare USVs and behavior with temporal precision. The test consisted of three phases that occurred in immediate succession: habituation, separation, and reunion. During the five-min habituation phase mothers and pups were placed together on the right side of the chamber with the partition down and allowed to freely interact with each other. During the three-minute separation phase, the pups were removed from the mother and placed on the other side of the partitioned divider. Mothers remained in the right-most chamber and pups were isolated in the left-most chamber. This setup allowed visual, auditory, and olfactory communication between pups and their mother, but restricted physical contact between individuals until the mesh wire was removed. Lastly, during the five-minute reunion phase, the mesh divider was lifted, and mothers could retrieve and interact with their pups. USVs and video were recorded for the entire 13-minute period. We chose a five-minute initial mother-pup interaction time to allow mothers time to adjust to the chamber and to mirror the time in the reunion phase where we measured latency to enter the chamber. This time period is important because it is the first time that the mothers and her pups are removed from the home cage and the father, so this time period served as an initial measure of behavior. Results from a pilot study measuring maternal retrievals indicates that five-minutes allowed most mothers to enter the chamber, approach the pups, and engage in maternal behaviors. We shortened the separation phase to three minutes because it was still sufficient to see signs of maternal distress but minimized the time that the pups were away from their mother.

Behavior quantification

All behavioral videos were scored in random order and by an independent observer blind to treatment. During each video, maternal behaviors (licking and grooming, huddling, and retrieving/carrying) were quantified. Of note, unlike house mice and rats that show several different types of nursing and huddling behavior, California mouse mothers do not show arched back nursing [72, 73]. The definitions of behaviors measured are detailed in an ethogram (S1 Fig). To gain insights into the correlations between maternal behavior and maternal and pup USVs, videos were coded by the exact time that mothers were huddling, licking and grooming, and retrieving/carrying. Huddling was counted when mothers were physically over their pups’ bodies [74]. Retrieving/carrying was counted when mothers picked up their pups and transferred them to a different location. Using the precise times that mothers engaged in different types of maternal care (or none at all) throughout the 13-minute testing window, we counted the maternal USVs within those windows. This allowed us to determine how maternal behavior was related to maternal USV production.

Ultrasonic vocalization analysis

Techniques used for recording were similar to those previously used in our laboratory [44, 46]. USVs were collected using two Emkay/Knowles FG series microphones capable of detecting broadband sound (10–120 kHz). Microphones were placed at the far ends of each of the two chambers. Microphone channels were calibrated to equal gain (− 60 dB noise floor). We used RECORDER software (Avisoft Bioacoustics) to produce triggered WAV file recordings (each with a duration of 0.5 s) upon the onset of a sound event that surpassed a set threshold of 5% energy change [36]. Recordings were collected at a 250 kHz sampling rate with a 16-bit resolution. Spectrograms were produced with a 512 FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) using Avisoft-SASLab Pro sound analysis software (Avisoft Bioacoustics). The only USVs found in these recordings were pup whines and maternal simple sweeps. Pup whines have a peak frequency around 20 kHz [75, 76] and the typical downward modulation at the end of the call often distinguishes these calls from adult syllable vocalizations (Nathaniel Rieger, Jose Hernandez, & Catherine Marler, unpublished) (Fig 1B). The lower frequencies in the pup whine can also be heard by human ears (below the ultrasonic range). Maternal simple sweeps were categorized by short downward-sweeping vocalizations that sweep through multiple frequencies, typically between 80 kHz and 40 kHz [77] (Fig 1B). It is extremely rare for pups to produce simple sweep USVs during PND 0–4 (Rieger, N. S., Hernandez, J. B., and Marler, C. M., unpublished). When young pups do produce simple sweeps, they are produced much quicker, and present completely vertical on the spectrogram [75]. This makes these rare pup simple sweeps easy to distinguish from the slower adult simple sweep USVs (Fig 1B). Because of their different spectrogram and acoustic properties, all USVs could be categorized and counted by combined visual and auditory inspections of the WAV files (sampling rate reduced to 11,025 kHz, corresponding to 4% of real-time playback speed).

Data analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using the program R. Significance level was set at p<0.05 for all analyses and all tests were two-tailed. All reported p-values were corrected using Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate corrections to control for multiple comparisons when effect of an X variable was tested for a relationship with multiple Y variables‥ Grubb’s outlier test was performed, and outliers for maternal vocalizations and freezing were removed from all analyses. Two mice (one control and one IN OXT-treated mouse) were Grubb’s outliers (p<0.05) for freezing (likely due to train noise during the test). One control mouse was a Grubb’s outlier (p<0.05) for both maternal and pup USVs. All analyses used a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). Treatment condition was used in all models as each female was given one treatment (between-subjects design). Thus, when a relationship between two variables was significant, treatment was left as a moderator in the model even if not significant.

Effects of IN OXT on vocalizations

To assess differences in total USV production across testing conditions, a within-subjects two-way ANOVA was used. To correct for differences in total time of the three testing phases, average number of USVs/second during each phase for each animal was calculated and used to compare the five-minute versus three-minute trials. To assess main effects of treatment, Student’s t-test was used in each of the three time points.

To examine the effects of IN OXT in the relationships between maternal simple sweep USVs and pup whine USVs, an interactive multivariate model was used (e.g. [Maternal behavior] ~ [Maternal USV] + [treatment]). Factor included in all models was treatment condition.

Effects of IN OXT on maternal and non-maternal behaviors

For maternal and non-maternal behavioral analysis, behavioral changes after the separation event, were calculated to examine reunion behaviors with and without OXT administration. To examine changes in behavior over time and after the separation challenge with and without OXT, the scores from total duration of each behavior in the reunion phase were subtracted by total duration of each behavior in the habituation phase (Reunion-Habituation). Thus, positive scores indicate more of the behavior was observed during the reunion phase and negative scores indicate more of the behavior was observed during the habituation phase. To compare main effects of IN OXT and saline control on maternal behavior, Students t-tests were used to assess behavioral outcomes (Fig 3). To calculate total maternal behavior, amount of time spent huddling and amount of time spent retrieving were summed. To calculate total non-maternal behavior, amount of time spent autogrooming, rearing, and freezing were summed.

Fig 3. Rapid effects of OXT on change in maternal and non-maternal behavior from habituation to reunion.

Fig 3

Maternal behaviors: (A) There was a non-significant trend for mothers given IN OXT to have a shorter pup approach latency. (B) There were no treatment differences for maternal huddling. (C) Mothers given IN OXT showed a significantly greater decrease in retrieval/carrying behavior from the habituation to the reunion phase. (D) IN OXT had a net positive effect on total maternal care relative to controls from the habituation to reunion phases. Non-maternal behaviors: (E) There were no treatment effects for change in autogrooming, (F) rearing, or (G) freezing. (H) There was no net change in non-maternal behaviors from the habituation to reunion. Correlation line collapsing across treatment groups. *p<0.05; #p<0.10.

Correlations between maternal care and maternal USVs and maternal care and pup USVs

To assess for mediation by IN OXT in the relationships between (a) maternal USVs and maternal behavior and (b) maternal behavior and pup USVs, a multivariate comparison was used. Factors included in the model were treatment condition and the interaction between treatment and maternal behavior.

Results

Effects of IN OXT on vocalizations

To determine how testing conditions affected vocal production in mothers and pups, we first assessed number of maternal and pup USVs per second across the habituation, separation, and reunion phases, and in response to IN OXT versus saline. Controlling for within subject analyses and treatment effects, mothers made fewer simple sweeps/second during the separation phase compared to the habituation or reunion phases (F2,20 = 13.00, p<0.00001). (Fig 2A). In the habituation phase, IN OXT mothers produced more simple sweeps than control mothers (F2,20 = 5.83, p<0.03, ΔR2 = 0.23) (Fig 2A). In the separation phase, IN OXT and control mothers did not differ in number of simple sweeps produced (F2,20 = 1.86, p = 0.19, ΔR2 = 0.09) (Fig 2A). Similar to the habituation phase, in the reunion phase, IN OXT mothers showed a nonsignificant trend for producing more simple sweeps than control mothers (F2,20 = 3.13, p = 0.08, ΔR2 = 0.15) (Fig 2A).

Fig 2. Rapid effects of IN OXT on USV production in mothers and pups.

Fig 2

(A) All mothers made more simple sweeps when given free access to their pups (during the habituation and reunion phases). Importantly, IN OXT mothers made more simple sweeps when given free access to their pups during habituation and reunion, but not when they were physically apart from pups during separation. (B) All pups made more whines when first placed into the chamber during the habituation phase. There were no effects of maternal IN OXT on pup USVs. Pups made more whines during the habituation phase than the separation and reunion phases. There was no effect of IN OXT treatment on pup whines during habituation, separation or reunion. Mediation analysis of the relationship between maternal USVs, pup USVs and treatment in (C) the habituation phase showed no simple effects of maternal USVs, no simple effects of treatment, but IN OXT showed a nonsignificant trend for the two-way interaction between maternal simple sweep USVs and treatment. (D) The separation phase showed no simple effects of maternal USVs, no simple effects of treatment, and no effect of interaction. (E) The reunion phase showed a significant positive correlation between maternal simple sweeps and pup whines, no simple effect of treatment, and no effect of interaction. Correlation line in black is the average slope across treatment groups; magenta and teal lines are the slopes for the saline and OXT treatments, respectively. ◆ p<0.05 for differences across time conditions; *p<0.05 for differences between control and OXT; #p<0.10 for differences between control and OXT.

Across the three phases, pup USVs showed no effect of IN OXT but did show changes in vocal production frequency across the testing phases. Controlling for within-subject analyses, pups made more whines during the habituation phase than the separation and reunion phases (F2,20 = 25.26, p<0.0000001) (Fig 2B). Pups with IN OXT and control mothers did not differ in number of USVs produced in the habituation phase (F1,20 = 0.35, p = 0.56, ΔR2 = 0.02), separation phase (F1,20 = 1.64, p = 0.22, ΔR2 = 0.08) or the reunion phase (F1,20 = 0.68, p = 0.42, ΔR2 = 0.04) (Fig 2B).

Next, we examined the relationship between number of maternal simple sweeps and pup whines using a model with treatment as a covariate. There were no significant correlations between maternal and pup USVs in either the habituation (F1,20 = 1.63, p = 0.22) (Fig 2C) or the separation phase (F1,20 = 0.03, p = 0.86) (Fig 2D). However, during the reunion phase, maternal simple sweeps and pup whines positively correlated (F1,20 = 7.51, p<0.02, ΔR2 = 0.21). For each pup whine, there were approximately 1.17 maternal simple sweeps (Fig 2E). There were no simple effects of OXT on the correlation between maternal-pup USVs: habituation (F1,20 = 0.25, p = 0.62) (Fig 2C), separation (F1,20 = 1.27, p = 0.27) (Fig 2D), reunion (F1,20 = 0.15, p = 0.69) (Fig 2E). Finally, our model also assessed the two-way interaction between maternal simple sweep USVs and treatment. IN OXT showed a nonsignificant trend for the two-way interaction between maternal simple sweep USVs and treatment, with IN OXT animals having a more positive slope (non-significant trend) than controls (F1,20 = 3.71, p = 0.069) (Fig 2C). Slope for IN OXT-treated mothers did not differ from controls in either the separation (F1,20 = 0.07, p = 0.79) (Fig 2D) or reunion (F1,20 = 2.90, p = 0.10) (Fig 2E) phases.

Effects of IN OXT on maternal and non-maternal behaviors

To assess the impact of IN OXT on maternal care following separation from pups, we assessed latency to enter the chamber with pups and then calculated change in maternal care from habituation to reunion to measure changes in other types of maternal behavior. This allowed us to determine how IN OXT affected response to pup separation above and beyond any initial effects of IN OXT observed in the habituation phase. In the beginning of the reunion phase, IN OXT mothers showed a non-significant trend for a shorter latency to approach pups (F1,20 = 3.63, p = 0.10, ΔR2 = 0.16) (Fig 3A). We also tested for main effects of IN OXT in several maternal and non-maternal behaviors. Negative scores mean that the behavior occurred more frequently during habituation and positive scores mean that the behavior occurred more frequently during reunion. Mothers tended to retrieve/carry more during the habituation phase and huddle more during the reunion phase. Mothers given IN OXT did not show any differences in huddling from controls (F1,20 = 0.62, p = 0.44) (Fig 3B). However, mothers given IN OXT showed a significantly more positive change in retrieval/carrying behavior from the habituation to the reunion phase (F1,20 = 6.71, p<0.05, ΔR2 = 0.26) (Fig 3C). This is driven by high rates of retrieval in control mothers during habituation. High rates of retrieval are associated with less efficient maternal care in mother rats in home and novel environments [7880] and virgin and mother mice in novel environments [81, 82]. Thus, the IN OXT mothers are likely more efficient at maintaining offspring care during this disruption. While mothers from both groups increased huddling behavior post-separation from pups, control mothers decreased retrieval/carrying behavior while IN OXT mothers maintained a consistent level of retrieval/carrying behavior. The net increase in maternal care for IN OXT mothers from habituation to reunion (F1,20 = 6.6, p<0.02, ΔR2 = 0.26) (Fig 3D) is therefore largely due to changes in retrieval behavior.

In order to determine if IN OXT was acting on neural systems that were specific to maternal care, we also tested for main effects of IN OXT on measures of activity (autogrooming, rearing) and stress/anxiety (freezing). From habituation to reunion, there were treatment differences in autogrooming (F1,20 = 0.32, p = 0.58) (Fig 3E), rearing (F1,20 = 1.23, p = 0.28) (Fig 3F), or freezing (F1,20 = 0.03, p = 0.85) (Fig 3G). When summing all activity and stress-related behaviors, there was no net effect on non-maternal behaviors from habituation to reunion (F1,20 = 1.94, p = 0.18) (Fig 3H). In this context, IN OXT is not influencing general, non-maternal behaviors in response to an offspring separation event. The individual means and SEMs for each behavior in each phase are also reported in S1 Table.

Correlations of maternal care with maternal USVs and pup USVs

To determine whether maternal simple sweeps were associated with specific maternal and investigative behaviors during each of the three testing phases, we correlated number of maternal USVs, which were always simple sweeps, during each phase with the corresponding behavior while controlling for moderation by IN OXT administration. In the habituation phase, maternal simple sweeps positively correlated with licking behavior (F2,20 = 12.04, p<0.007, ΔR2 = 0.34) (Fig 4B). There was also a nonsignificant trend for a correlation between maternal simple sweeps and huddling (F2,20 = 4.48, p = 0.072, ΔR2 = 0.18) (Fig 4A), and no effect associated with retrieving/carrying (F2,20 = 0.44, p = 0.51, ΔR2 = 0.02) (Fig 4C). There was also, however, a significant moderation by IN OXT in the relationship between maternal retrievals and maternal simple sweeps. During habituation, mothers given IN OXT carried/retrieved pups less than mothers given saline (F2,20 = 9.95, p<0.005, ΔR2 = 0.33) (Fig 4C) but note that overall, IN OXT mothers had consistent retrieval levels across the test (Fig 2B). In the separation phase, there was no correlation between time the mother spent at the mesh divider and maternal simple sweep USVs (F2,20 = 1.2, p = 0.58, ΔR2 = 0.058) (Fig 4D). Other maternal behaviors could not be assessed because of the mesh divider between mothers and pups. In the reunion phase, maternal simple sweeps positively correlated with maternal retrievals/carrying (F1,20 = 7.65, p<0.037, ΔR2 = 0.26) (Fig 4G). Other maternal behaviors did not correlate with maternal simple sweeps in this phase: huddling (F1,20 = 0.48, p = 0.99, ΔR2 = 0.02) (Fig 4E) and licking (F1,20 = 0.001, p = 0.98, ΔR2 = 0.00) (Fig 4F). Thus, overall, there were associations between maternal simple sweeps and maternal care, but the maternal behavior that correlated with maternal simple sweeps varied depending on context.

Fig 4. Correlations between maternal simple sweep USVs and maternal care.

Fig 4

(A-C) Habituation. (A) There was a nonsignificant trend correlation between maternal simple sweeps and huddling. (B) Maternal simple sweeps positively correlated with licking behavior. (C) Maternal simple sweeps did not correlate with retrieving/carrying. Mothers given IN OXT carried/retrieved pups less than mothers given saline. (D) Separation. There was no correlation between time mothers spent at the mesh divider and maternal simple sweep USVs. (E-G) Reunion. (E) Maternal simple sweeps did not correlate with huddling or (F) licking. (G) Maternal simple sweeps positively correlated with maternal retrievals. Correlation line in black is the average slope across treatment groups; magenta and teal lines are the slopes for the saline and OXT treatments, respectively. *p<0.05; #p<0.10.

Next, we correlated pup whine USVs with specific types of maternal behavior to see if these pup calls were associated with a specific maternal response. During the habituation phase, there was a significant positive correlation between pup whines and maternal huddling (F1,20 = 8.93, p<0.024, ΔR2 = 0.30) (Fig 5A), but not with maternal licking (F1,20 = 3.26, p = 0.174, ΔR2 = 0.13) (Fig 5B) or retrieval/carrying behavior (F1,20 = 1.14, p = 0.26, ΔR2 = 0.04) (Fig 5C). During the separation phase, pup whines did not correlate with time that the mother spent at the mesh gate (F1,20 = 0.89, p = 0.36, ΔR2 = 0.04) (Fig 5D). Lastly, during the reunion phase, pup USVs positively correlated with retrieving/carrying (F1,20 = 9.94, p = 0.016, ΔR2 = 0.34) (Fig 5G) but was not correlated with either huddling (F1,20 = 0.05, p = 0.823, ΔR2 = 0.003) (Fig 5E) or licking (F1,20 = 0.893, p = 0.36, ΔR2 = 0.043) (Fig 5F). Across all correlations of USVs and maternal care, significant correlations occurred, but neither maternal simple sweep USVs nor pup whine USVs consistently correlated with a specific type of maternal care.

Fig 5. Correlations between pup whine USVs and maternal care.

Fig 5

(A-C) Habituation. (A) There was a significant positive correlation between pup whines and maternal huddling. (B) There was no correlation between pup whines and maternal licking or (C) pup whines and maternal retrieval/carrying behavior. (D) Separation. Pup whines did not correlate with time that the mother spent at the mesh gate. (E-G) Reunion. (E) There was no correlation between pup whines and maternal huddling or (F) pup whines and maternal licking. (G) Pup USVs positively correlated with maternal retrieving/carrying. Correlation line in black is the average slope across treatment groups; magenta and teal lines are the slopes for the saline and OXT treatments, respectively. *p<0.05.

Discussion

Maternal care and communication have lifelong consequences for offspring [8386]. Therefore, it is important to elucidate the proximate hormonal mechanisms that increase maternal care and communication. OXT is known for its potent role in maternal physiology, neurophysiology, and social behavior, but whether OXT could rapidly change vocal production and behavior in mothers remained unknown. We aimed to fill these knowledge gaps by testing maternal response and effects of IN OXT during a potentially challenging and stressful pup separation paradigm.

We predicted that maternal care activity would be associated with vocal production and that IN OXT would amplify this effect. We found support for this hypothesis as all mothers produced more simple sweep USVs per second during both the habituation phase and reunion phase when mothers had access to tactile pup experience. We speculate that maternal sweeps decreased during the separation phase because mothers no longer had physical access to pups. The relative reduction of maternal simple sweeps during the separation phase may suggest that simple sweeps occur more frequently during social contact or may reflect a difference in internal state. In support of the social salience theory [8791], IN OXT amplified the effect of the tactile pup experience, leading to an increase above and beyond the observed increase in control mothers during the habituation phase (and a trend in reunion phase). To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting context-dependent IN OXT-moderated changes in USV production that were associated with physical access to a social stimulus [92].

There are several possible functions for simple sweep USV production in the context of maternal care. Increased simple sweep USVs during maternal care may result from a higher state of arousal that is regulated by the autonomic nervous system [93]. This is supported by evidence in prairie voles, where vocal features covary with heart rate—longer vocalizations were associated with increased vagal tone and more calm behavior whereas shorter vocalizations were associated with decreased vagal tone and more anxious behavior [94]. Alternatively, increases in simple sweep USVs may be associated with a positive affective state [95]. In rats, 50 kHz USVs (similar kHz as California mouse simple sweeps) have been associated with positive affective state [9], and in California mice, simple sweeps typically occur during affiliative contexts [71]. This adds to a growing body of literature that aims to elucidate California mouse call type with function. Complex sweeps predict pair mate social behavior [46]; syllable USVs are associated with aggression (shorter calls) [44] and female preference (longer calls) [46]; both syllable USVs (shorter calls) and barks are associated with increased aggression [45]; pup whines can also elicit paternal retrievals [96]. As expected, we did not observe any syllable vocalizations or barks and only a handful of complex sweeps across all tests as these calls tend to be associated with aggression or adult interactions. Because IN OXT increased maternal simple sweep USVs, and in other studies, IN OXT has increased both vagal tone [97] and positive affective state [98100], we suggest that maternal simple sweeps are most likely to be associated with changes in affective state.

In contrast to mothers, we did not expect to see a treatment effect with regards to pup vocalizations because only the mothers were treated. As expected, we did not observe differences in pup vocalizations between pup with control mothers and IN OXT mothers. This suggests that effects of IN OXT on the mother do not directly and rapidly influence pup behavior. Overall, pups called the most when first placed into the new chamber with their mothers at the rate of 0.94 whines per second, and then called at a steady rate of 0.33 whines per second during separation and reunion. This suggests that pup vocal production does not vary by social contact in the same way as maternal vocalizations. Instead, pup vocal production may be a function of their thermal challenge, as indicted by previous studies on rat pup USVs demonstrating pups increase USVs when first separated from their nest and given thermal challenges [101, 102]. After losing a certain amount of heat energy, number of pup whines produced may decrease to balance energy conservation and venous blood return to the heart.

We predicted a correlation between maternal simple sweeps and pup whines. We expected that the correlation between mother-pup USVs would be driven by the mother’s vocalizations and/or behavior, as the pups’ ear canals have not opened at PND 2–3, likely rendering them deaf [103]. Mother and pup USVs did not correlate during habituation, possibly because pup whine USVs were highest during this phase (Fig 2B) or possibly because the removal from the home cage at the start of the test disrupted the coordination between mothers and pups. There was also a nonsignificant trend for IN OXT to improve the correlation between mother and pup USVs. If the removal from the home cage at the start of the test disrupted the coordination between mothers and pups, IN OXT may be mediating this negative effect by increasing the salience of pup whine stimuli [104], allowing mothers to more effectively and efficiently cope with the challenge. During reunion, we found support for our initial prediction: maternal simple sweeps and pup whines positively correlated. Mothers may be more responsive to pup whines during the reunion phase because the pups have been without care for a longer period of time. An alternative explanation is that this synchrony occurred out of necessity because, with the second chamber open, the mice had double the space in the reunion phase compared to the habituation phase. In lambs and ewes, mother-offspring vocalizations have been shown to be important for recognition and location purposes [105, 106] with young lambs only being able to distinguish their mother via low frequency calls but using high frequency calls during vocal exchanges [107]. Mother-offspring vocalizations that are contingent on each other’s vocalizations have also been observed across cultures in humans [108]. To our knowledge, this is the first reporting of correlations between maternal USVs and offspring USVs in an animal model.

We also wanted to explore whether maternal simple sweeps or pup whines are correlated with specific types of maternal behavior. During habituation, USVs from both mothers and pups were associated with greater maternal care but were not associated with the same maternal behavior; maternal simple sweeps positively correlated with maternal licking behavior and pup whines positively correlated with maternal huddling behavior. During reunion, we saw a different relationship between USVs and maternal behavior, suggesting that if pup calls and not maternal responsiveness are driving these correlations, the pup whines are not eliciting a specific type of maternal care. During reunion, both maternal simple sweeps and pup whines positively correlated with maternal retrieval/carrying behavior. This suggests that after a separation event, pup whines may drive maternal retrieval/carrying behavior, similar to the finding previously reported in fathers [96], and that maternal simple sweeps may be a reliable signal supporting maternal responsiveness. Studies in the literature show support for this effect being driven by maternal responsiveness in mice [109, 110] and other studies show that the effect can also be driven by the pups [111, 112].

Finally, based on the prosocial effects of OXT, we predicted that an acute dose of IN OXT would increase maternal care. Our results show that in the context of our paradigm, IN OXT maintains maternal care rather than overtly increasing it. Mothers given IN OXT showed consistent number of retrievals pre- and post-separation while control mothers significantly decreased number of retrievals performed post-separation, leading to greater maintenance of total maternal care for IN OXT mothers. These findings are consistent with other studies in the literature in sheep [113], mice [114], rats [115, 116], and humans [117] but highlight that OXT can also increase maternal behavior within minutes of administration. We did not find that IN OXT led to a significant decrease in latency to approach pups after separation, but we found a non-significant trend. This supports previous findings in the literature that OXT has been associated with a reduction in the latency to retrieve or start maternal behavior [118, 119] though several other studies have not reported an effect of OXT on latency to retrieve pups [114, 120, 121]. Notably, we did not find any simple effects of IN OXT on nonmaternal behaviors during the habituation, separation, or reunion phases. This suggests that IN OXT specifically influences maternal behavior and not general activity (autogrooming, rearing) or anxiety (freezing) in female California mice. If IN OXT is dampening the stress/anxiety response, it is specific to maternal anxiety. This is important to note because one hypothesis regarding the effects of IN OXT is that it primarily functions as an anxiolytic agent versus a pro-social capacity across a variety of contexts and species [122124]. In certain contexts, OXT can also have anxiogenic effects [62, 125]. However, we do not find that OXT is promoting anxiety in this context. Our results suggest that in this context, IN OXT has a specific effect on maternal care behavior that is not explained by differences in the non-maternal activities related to activity or stress.

In summary, these data are consistent with the concept that IN OXT rapidly and selectively increases maternal vocalizations and maintains maternal care. This data also highlights the importance of social contact for normal communication and care and enhancement by IN OXT. Overall, we propose that higher levels of OXT in mothers function to increase efficiency and maintain maternal care, particularly during challenges.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Ethogram with description of behaviors measured.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Means and SEMs of behaviors measured.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank undergraduate student support for their work during implementation of the experiment and quantification of behavior, and UW Madison animal care staff for their excellent care of the animals.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

C.M. 1355163 National Science Foundation https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1355163 The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Fairbanks LA, McGuire MT. Maternal condition and the quality of maternal care in vervet monkeys. Behaviour. 1995. January 1;132(9–10):733–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Nowak R, Porter RH, Lévy F, Orgeur P, Schaal B. Role of mother-young interactions in the survival of offspring in domestic mammals. Reviews of Reproduction. 2000. September 1;5(3):153–63. 10.1530/ror.0.0050153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Blomquist GE. Maternal effects on offspring mortality in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). American Journal of Primatology. 2013. March;75(3):238–51. 10.1002/ajp.22117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lerch-Haner JK, Frierson D, Crawford LK, Beck SG, Deneris ES. Serotonergic transcriptional programming determines maternal behavior and offspring survival. Nature Neuroscience. 2008. September;11(9):1001. 10.1038/nn.2176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Francis D, Diorio J, Liu D, Meaney MJ. Nongenomic transmission across generations of maternal behavior and stress responses in the rat. Science. 1999. November 5;286(5442):1155–8. 10.1126/science.286.5442.1155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Allin JT, Banks EM. Functional aspects of ultrasound production by infant albino rats (Rattus norvegicus). Animal Behaviour. 1972. February 1;20(1):175–85. 10.1016/s0003-3472(72)80189-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hennessy MB, Li J, Lowe EL, Levine S. Maternal behavior, pup vocalizations, and pup temperature changes following handling in mice of 2 inbred strains. Developmental Psychobiology: The Journal of the International Society for Developmental Psychobiology. 1980. November;13(6):573–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schiavo JK, Valtcheva S, Bair-Marshall C, Song SC, Martin KA, Froemke RC. Innate sensitivity and plastic mechanisms in auditory cortex for reliable maternal behavior. bioRxiv. 2020. January 1. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Portfors CV. Types and functions of ultrasonic vocalizations in laboratory rats and mice. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. 2007. January 1;46(1):28–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.White NR, Adox R, Reddy A, Barfield RJ. Regulation of rat maternal behavior by broadband pup vocalizations. Behavioral and Neural Biology. 1992. September 1;58(2):131–7. 10.1016/0163-1047(92)90363-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bell MR. Comparing postnatal development of gonadal hormones and associated social behaviors in rats, mice, and humans. Endocrinology. 2018. July;159(7):2596–613. 10.1210/en.2018-00220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Brewster J, Leon M. Relocation of the site of mother–young contact: Maternal transport behavior in Norway rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology. 1980. February;94(1):69. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mogi K, Takakuda A, Tsukamoto C, Ooyama R, Okabe S, Koshida N, et al. Mutual mother-infant recognition in mice: The role of pup ultrasonic vocalizations. Behavioural Brain Research. 2017. May 15;325:138–46. 10.1016/j.bbr.2016.08.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Knutson B, Burgdorf J, Panksepp J. Ultrasonic vocalizations as indices of affective states in rats. Psychological Bulletin. 2002. November;128(6):961. 10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.961 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Simola N, Fenu S, Costa G, Pinna A, Plumitallo A, Morelli M. Pharmacological characterization of 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations in rats: comparison of the effects of different psychoactive drugs and relevance in drug-induced reward. Neuropharmacology. 2012. August 1;63(2):224–34. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2012.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Stern JM. Maternal behavior: Sensory, hormonal, and neural determinants. Psychoendocrinology 1989. January 1 (pp. 105–226). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cheng MF. For whom does the female dove coo? A case for the role of vocal self-stimulation. Animal Behaviour. 1992. June 1;43(6):1035–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Arnon S, Diamant C, Bauer S, Regev R, Sirota G, Litmanovitz I. Maternal singing during kangaroo care led to autonomic stability in preterm infants and reduced maternal anxiety. Acta Paediatrica. 2014. October;103(10):1039–44. 10.1111/apa.12744 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bartz JA, Hollander E. The neuroscience of affiliation: forging links between basic and clinical research on neuropeptides and social behavior. Hormones and Behavior. 2006. November 1;50(4):518–28. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.06.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lim MM, Young LJ. Neuropeptidergic regulation of affiliative behavior and social bonding in animals. Hormones and Behavior. 2006. November 1;50(4):506–17. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.06.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Maynard KR, Hobbs JW, Phan BN, Gupta A, Rajpurohit S, Williams C, et al. BDNF-TrkB signaling in oxytocin neurons contributes to maternal behavior. Elife. 2018. September 7;7:e33676. 10.7554/eLife.33676 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Taylor JH, French JA. Oxytocin and vasopressin enhance responsiveness to infant stimuli in adult marmosets. Hormones and Behavior. 2015. September 1;75:154–9. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.10.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Guoynes C, Marler C. Paternal Behavior from a Neuroendocrine Perspective. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Neuroscience; 2020. March 31. 10.3389/fnbeh.2020.584731 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rosenblatt JS. The development of maternal responsiveness in the rat. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1969. January;39(1):36. 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1969.tb00619.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Moltz H, Lubin M, Leon M, Numan M. Hormonal induction of maternal behavior in the ovariectomized nulliparous rat. Physiology and Behavior. 1970. December 1;5(12):1373–7. 10.1016/0031-9384(70)90122-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pedersen CA, Prange AJ. Induction of maternal behavior in virgin rats after intracerebroventricular administration of oxytocin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1979. December 1;76(12):6661–5. 10.1073/pnas.76.12.6661 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Feldman R, Weller A, Zagoory-Sharon O, Levine A. Evidence for a neuroendocrinological foundation of human affiliation: plasma oxytocin levels across pregnancy and the postpartum period predict mother-infant bonding. Psychological Science. 2007. November;18(11):965–70. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02010.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Siegel HI, Rosenblatt JS. Estrogen-induced maternal behavior in hysterectomized-ovariectomized virgin rats. Physiology & Behavior. 1975. April 1;14(4):465–71. 10.1016/0018-506x(75)90009-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Takayanagi Y, Yoshida M, Bielsky IF, Ross HE, Kawamata M, Onaka T, et al. Pervasive social deficits, but normal parturition, in oxytocin receptor-deficient mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2005. November 1;102(44):16096–101. 10.1073/pnas.0505312102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Van Leengoed E, Kerker E, Swanson HH. Inhibition of post-partum maternal behaviour in the rat by injecting an oxytocin antagonist into the cerebral ventricles. Journal of Endocrinology. 1987. February 1;112(2):275–82. 10.1677/joe.0.1120275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Scott N, Prigge M, Yizhar O, Kimchi T. A sexually dimorphic hypothalamic circuit controls maternal care and oxytocin secretion. Nature. 2015. September;525(7570):519–22. 10.1038/nature15378 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Francis DD, Champagne FC, Meaney MJ. Variations in maternal behaviour are associated with differences in oxytocin receptor levels in the rat. Journal of Neuroendocrinology. 2000. December;12(12):1145–8. 10.1046/j.1365-2826.2000.00599.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Champagne F, Diorio J, Sharma S, Meaney MJ. Naturally occurring variations in maternal behavior in the rat are associated with differences in estrogen-inducible central oxytocin receptors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2001. October 23;98(22):12736–41. 10.1073/pnas.221224598 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Musolf K, Hoffmann F, Penn DJ. Ultrasonic courtship vocalizations in wild house mice, Mus musculus musculus. Animal Behaviour. 2010. March 1;79(3):757–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Scattoni ML, Crawley J, Ricceri L. Ultrasonic vocalizations: a tool for behavioural phenotyping of mouse models of neurodevelopmental disorders. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2009. April 1;33(4):508–15. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.08.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kalcounis-Rueppell MC, Petric R, Briggs JR, Carney C, Marshall MM, Willse JT, et al. Differences in ultrasonic vocalizations between wild and laboratory California mice (Peromyscus californicus). PloS One. 2010. April 1;5(4):e9705. 10.1371/journal.pone.0009705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Arriaga G, Jarvis ED. Mouse vocal communication system: Are ultrasounds learned or innate?. Brain and Language. 2013. January 1;124(1):96–116. 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.10.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Winslow JT, Insel TR. The social deficits of the oxytocin knockout mouse. Neuropeptides. 2002. April 1;36(2–3):221–9. 10.1054/npep.2002.0909 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Marlin BJ, Mitre M, D’amour JA, Chao MV, Froemke RC. Oxytocin enables maternal behaviour by balancing cortical inhibition. Nature. 2015. April;520(7548):499–504. 10.1038/nature14402 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tops M, Van IJzendoorn MH, Riem MM, Boksem MA, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ. Oxytocin receptor gene associated with the efficiency of social auditory processing. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2011. November 4;2:60. 10.3389/fpsyt.2011.00060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Briggs JR, Kalcounis-Rueppell MC. Similar acoustic structure and behavioural context of vocalizations produced by male and female California mice in the wild. Animal Behaviour. 2011. December 1;82(6):1263–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kalcounis-Rueppell MC, Metheny JD, Vonhof MJ. Production of ultrasonic vocalizations by Peromyscus mice in the wild. Frontiers in Zoology. 2006. December 1;3(1):3. 10.1186/1742-9994-3-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Pultorak JD, Fuxjager MJ, Kalcounis-Rueppell MC, Marler CA. Male fidelity expressed through rapid testosterone suppression of ultrasonic vocalizations to novel females in the monogamous California mouse. Hormones and Behavior. 2015. April 1;70:47–56. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.02.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Rieger NS, Marler CA. The function of ultrasonic vocalizations during territorial defence by pair-bonded male and female California mice. Animal Behaviour. 2018. January 1;135:97–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Rieger NS, Stanton EH, Marler CA. Division of labour in territorial defence and pup retrieval by pair-bonded California mice, Peromyscus californicus. Animal Behaviour. 2019. October 1;156:67–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pultorak JD, Matusinec KR, Miller ZK, Marler CA. Ultrasonic vocalization production and playback predicts intrapair and extrapair social behaviour in a monogamous mouse. Animal Behaviour. 2017. March 1;125:13–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bales KL, Perkeybile AM, Conley OG, Lee MH, Guoynes CD, Downing GM, et al. Chronic intranasal oxytocin causes long-term impairments in partner preference formation in male prairie voles. Biological Psychiatry. 2013. August 1;74(3):180–8. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.08.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Carter GG, Wilkinson GS. Intranasal oxytocin increases social grooming and food sharing in the common vampire bat Desmodus rotundus. Hormones and behavior. 2015. September 1;75:150–3. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Harris BN, Saltzman W. Effects of aging on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity and reactivity in virgin male and female California mice (Peromyscus californicus). General and Comparative Endocrinology. 2013. June 1;186:41–9. 10.1016/j.ygcen.2013.02.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bales KL, Solomon M, Jacob S, Crawley JN, Silverman JL, Larke RH, et al. Long-term exposure to intranasal oxytocin in a mouse autism model. Translational Psychiatry. 2014. November;4(11):e480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Guoynes CD, Simmons TC, Downing GM, Jacob S, Solomon M, Bales KL. Chronic intranasal oxytocin has dose-dependent effects on central oxytocin and vasopressin systems in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster). Neuroscience. 2018. January 15;369:292–302. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.11.037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Murgatroyd CA, Hicks-Nelson A, Fink A, Beamer G, Gurel K, Elnady F, et al. Effects of chronic social stress and maternal intranasal oxytocin and vasopressin on offspring interferon-γ and behavior. Frontiers in endocrinology. 2016. December 14;7:155. 10.3389/fendo.2016.00155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Talegaonkar S, Mishra PR. Intranasal delivery: An approach to bypass the blood brain barrier. Indian Journal of Pharmacology. 2004. May 1;36(3):140. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Neumann ID, Maloumby R, Beiderbeck DI, Lukas M, Landgraf R. Increased brain and plasma oxytocin after nasal and peripheral administration in rats and mice. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2013. October 1;38(10):1985–93. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Striepens N, Kendrick KM, Hanking V, Landgraf R, Wüllner U, Maier W, et al. Elevated cerebrospinal fluid and blood concentrations of oxytocin following its intranasal administration in humans. Scientific Reports. 2013. December 6;3:3440. 10.1038/srep03440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lee MR, Scheidweiler KB, Diao XX, Akhlaghi F, Cummins A, Huestis MA, et al. Oxytocin by intranasal and intravenous routes reaches the cerebrospinal fluid in rhesus macaques: determination using a novel oxytocin assay. Molecular Psychiatry. 2018. January;23(1):115–22. 10.1038/mp.2017.27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Oppong-Damoah A, Zaman RU, D’Souza MJ, Murnane KS. Nanoparticle encapsulation increases the brain penetrance and duration of action of intranasal oxytocin. Hormones and Behavior. 2019. February 1;108:20–9. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2018.12.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Lee MR, Shnitko TA, Blue SW, Kaucher AV, Winchell AJ, Erikson DW, et al. Labeled oxytocin administered via the intranasal route reaches the brain in rhesus macaques. Nature Communications. 2020. June 3;11(1):1–0. 10.1038/s41467-019-13993-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Freeman SM, Samineni S, Allen PC, Stockinger D, Bales KL, Hwa GG, et al. Plasma and CSF oxytocin levels after intranasal and intravenous oxytocin in awake macaques. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2016. April 1;66:185–94. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2016.01.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Gossen A, Hahn A, Westphal L, Prinz S, Schultz RT, Gründer G, et al. Oxytocin plasma concentrations after single intranasal oxytocin administration–a study in healthy men. Neuropeptides. 2012. October 1;46(5):211–5. 10.1016/j.npep.2012.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Duque-Wilckens N, Torres LY, Yokoyama S, Minie VA, Tran AM, Petkova SP, et al. Extrahypothalamic oxytocin neurons drive stress-induced social vigilance and avoidance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020. October 20;117(42):26406–13. 10.1073/pnas.2011890117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Duque-Wilckens N, Steinman MQ, Busnelli M, Chini B, Yokoyama S, Pham M, et al. Oxytocin receptors in the anteromedial bed nucleus of the stria terminalis promote stress-induced social avoidance in female California mice. Biological psychiatry. 2018. February 1;83(3):203–13. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.08.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Churchland PS, Winkielman P. Modulating social behavior with oxytocin: how does it work? What does it mean? Hormones and Behavior. 2012. March 1;61(3):392–9. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.12.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Quintana DS, Alvares GA, Hickie IB, Guastella AJ. Do delivery routes of intranasally administered oxytocin account for observed effects on social cognition and behavior? A two-level model. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2015. February 1;49:182–92. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.12.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Leng G, Ludwig M. Intranasal oxytocin: myths and delusions. Biological Psychiatry. 2016. February 1;79(3):243–50. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Steinman MQ, Duque-Wilckens N, Greenberg GD, Hao R, Campi KL, Laredo SA, et al. Sex-specific effects of stress on oxytocin neurons correspond with responses to intranasal oxytocin. Biological Psychiatry. 2016. September 1;80(5):406–14. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.10.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Harris BN, Perea-Rodriguez JP, Saltzman W. Acute effects of corticosterone injection on paternal behavior in California mouse (Peromyscus californicus) fathers. Hormones and Behavior. 2011. November 1;60(5):666–75. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Dlugosz EM, Harris BN, Saltzman W, Chappell MA. Glucocorticoids, aerobic physiology, and locomotor behavior in California mice. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology. 2012. November 1;85(6):671–83. 10.1086/667809 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Chauke M, Malisch JL, Robinson C, de Jong TR, Saltzman W. Effects of reproductive status on behavioral and endocrine responses to acute stress in a biparental rodent, the California mouse (Peromyscus californicus). Hormones and Behavior. 2011. June 1;60(1):128–38. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.04.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Zhao M, Harris BN, Nguyen CT, Saltzman W. Effects of single parenthood on mothers’ behavior, morphology, and endocrine function in the biparental California mouse. Hormones and Behavior. 2019. August 1;114:104536. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2019.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Pultorak JD, Alger SJ, Loria SO, Johnson AM, Marler CA. Changes in behavior and ultrasonic vocalizations during pair bonding and in response to an infidelity challenge in monogamous California mice. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 2018. August 28;6:125. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Bester-Meredith JK, Burns JN, Conley MF, Mammarella GE, Ng ND. Peromyscus as a model system for understanding the regulation of maternal behavior. In Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology 2017. January 1 (Vol. 61, pp. 99–106). Academic Press. 10.1016/j.semcdb.2016.07.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Johnson SA, Javurek AB, Painter MS, Peritore MP, Ellersieck MR, Roberts RM, et al. Disruption of parenting behaviors in California Mice, a monogamous rodent species, by endocrine disrupting chemicals. PloS One. 2015. June 3;10(6):e0126284. 10.1371/journal.pone.0126284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Bester‐Meredith JK, Marler CA. The association between male offspring aggression and paternal and maternal behavior of Peromyscus mice. Ethology. 2003. October;109(10):797–808. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Johnson SA, Painter MS, Javurek AB, Murphy CR, Howald EC, Khan ZZ, et al. Characterization of vocalizations emitted in isolation by California mouse (Peromyscus californicus) pups throughout the postnatal period. Journal of Comparative Psychology. 2017. February;131(1):30. 10.1037/com0000057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Kalcounis-Rueppell MC, Pultorak JD, Blake BH, Marler CA. Ultrasonic vocalizations of young mice in the genus Peromyscus. InHandbook of Behavioral Neuroscience 2018. January 1 (Vol. 25, pp. 149–156). Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Kalcounis-Rueppell MC, Pultorak JD, Marler CA. Ultrasonic vocalizations of mice in the genus Peromyscus. In Handbook of Behavioral Neuroscience 2018. January 1 (Vol. 25, pp. 227–235). Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Beach FA, Jaynes J. Studies of Maternal Retrieving in Rats. Iii. Sensory cues involved in the lactating female’s response to her young 1. Behaviour. 1956. January 1;10(1):104–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Smart JL, Preece J. Maternal behaviour of undernourished mother rats. Animal Behaviour. 1973. August 1;21(3):613–9. 10.1016/s0003-3472(73)80024-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Aguggia JP, Suárez MM, Rivarola MA. Early maternal separation: neurobehavioral consequences in mother rats. Behavioural Brain Research. 2013. July 1;248:25–31. 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.03.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Dunlap AG, Besosa C, Pascual LM, Chong KK, Walum H, Kacsoh DB, et al. Becoming a better parent: Mice learn sounds that improve a stereotyped maternal behavior. Hormones and Behavior. 2020. August 1;124:104779. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2020.104779 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Liu RC, Linden JF, Schreiner CE. Improved cortical entrainment to infant communication calls in mothers compared with virgin mice. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2006. June;23(11):3087–97. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.04840.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Champagne FA, Meaney MJ. Stress during gestation alters postpartum maternal care and the development of the offspring in a rodent model. Biological Psychiatry. 2006. June 15;59(12):1227–35. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.10.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Champagne FA, Curley JP. Epigenetic mechanisms mediating the long-term effects of maternal care on development. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2009. April 1;33(4):593–600. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.10.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Champagne FA, Curley JP. Plasticity of the maternal brain across the lifespan. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development. 2016. September;2016(153):9–21. 10.1002/cad.20164 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Cutuli D, Caporali P, Gelfo F, Angelucci F, Laricchiuta D, Foti F, et al. Pre-reproductive maternal enrichment influences rat maternal care and offspring developmental trajectories: behavioral performances and neuroplasticity correlates. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2015. March 12;9:66. 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Shamay-Tsoory SG, Abu-Akel A. The social salience hypothesis of oxytocin. Biological Psychiatry. 2016. February 1;79(3):194–202. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.07.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Kemp AH, Guastella AJ. Oxytocin: prosocial behavior, social salience, or approach-related behavior?. Biological Psychiatry. 2010. March 15;67(6):e33–4. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.11.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Egito JH, Nevat M, Shamay-Tsoory SG, Osório AA. Oxytocin increases the social salience of the outgroup in potential threat contexts. Hormones and Behavior. 2020. June 1;122:104733. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2020.104733 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Bartz JA, Zaki J, Bolger N, Ochsner KN. Social effects of oxytocin in humans: context and person matter. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2011. July 1;15(7):301–9. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Ramsey ME, Fry D, Cummings ME. Isotocin increases female avoidance of males in a coercive mating system: assessing the social salience hypothesis of oxytocin in a fish species. Hormones and Behavior. 2019. June 1;112:1–9. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2019.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Marler CA, Monari PK. Neuroendocrine control of vocalizations in rodents. Neuroendocrine Regulation of Animal Vocalization 2021. January 1 (pp. 201–216). Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Porges SW. The polyvagal theory: new insights into adaptive reactions of the autonomic nervous system. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. 2009. April;76(Suppl 2):S86. 10.3949/ccjm.76.s2.17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Stewart AM, Lewis GF, Yee JR, Kenkel WM, Davila MI, Carter CS, et al. Acoustic features of prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster) ultrasonic vocalizations covary with heart rate. Physiology & Behavior. 2015. January 1;138:94–100. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.10.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Simola N, Granon S. Ultrasonic vocalizations as a tool in studying emotional states in rodent models of social behavior and brain disease. Neuropharmacology. 2019. November 15;159:107420. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2018.11.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Chary MC, Cruz JP, Bardi M, Becker EA. Paternal retrievals increase testosterone levels in both male and female California mouse (Peromyscus californicus) offspring. Hormones and Behavior. 2015. July 1;73:23–9. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.05.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Higa KT, Mori E, Viana FF, Morris M, Michelini LC. Baroreflex control of heart rate by oxytocin in the solitary-vagal complex. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2002. February 1;282(2):R537–45. 10.1152/ajpregu.00806.2000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Dölen G, Darvishzadeh A, Huang KW, Malenka RC. Social reward requires coordinated activity of nucleus accumbens oxytocin and serotonin. Nature. 2013. September;501(7466):179–84. 10.1038/nature12518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.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. September 29;357(6358):1406–11. 10.1126/science.aan4994 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Baracz SJ, Cornish JL. Oxytocin modulates dopamine-mediated reward in the rat subthalamic nucleus. Hormones and Behavior. 2013. February 1;63(2):370–5. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2012.12.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Blumberg MS, Alberts JR. Ultrasonic vocalizations by rat pups in the cold: an acoustic by-product of laryngeal braking? Behavioral Neuroscience. 1990. October;104(5):808. 10.1037//0735-7044.104.5.808 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Blumberg MS, Sokoloff G. Do infant rats cry? Psychological Review. 2001. January;108(1):83. 10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.83 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Fox WM. Reflex-ontogeny and behavioural development of the mouse. Animal Behaviour. 1965. April 1;13(2–3):234–IN5. 10.1016/0003-3472(65)90041-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Valtcheva S, Froemke RC. Neuromodulation of maternal circuits by oxytocin. Cell and Tissue Research. 2019. January 28;375(1):57–68. 10.1007/s00441-018-2883-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Sebe F, Nowak R, Poindron P, Aubin T. Establishment of vocal communication and discrimination between ewes and their lamb in the first two days after parturition. Developmental Psychobiology: The Journal of the International Society for Developmental Psychobiology. 2007. May;49(4):375–86. 10.1002/dev.20218 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Searby A, Jouventin P. Mother-lamb acoustic recognition in sheep: a frequency coding. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 2003. September 7;270(1526):1765–71. 10.1098/rspb.2003.2442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Sèbe F, Duboscq J, Aubin T, Ligout S, Poindron P. Early vocal recognition of mother by lambs: contribution of low-and high-frequency vocalizations. Animal Behaviour. 2010. May 1;79(5):1055–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Bornstein MH, Putnick DL, Cote LR, Haynes OM, Suwalsky JT. Mother-infant contingent vocalizations in 11 countries. Psychological Science. 2015. August;26(8):1272–84. 10.1177/0956797615586796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.D’Amato FR, Scalera E, Sarli C, Moles A. Pups call, mothers rush: does maternal responsiveness affect the amount of ultrasonic vocalizations in mouse pups? Behavior Genetics. 2005. January 1;35(1):103–12. 10.1007/s10519-004-0860-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.D’Amato FR, Populin R. Mother-offspring interaction and pup development in genetically deaf mice. Behavior Genetics. 1987. September 1;17(5):465–75. 10.1007/BF01073113 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Curry T, Egeto P, Wang H, Podnos A, Wasserman D, Yeomans J. Dopamine receptor D2 deficiency reduces mouse pup ultrasonic vocalizations and maternal responsiveness. Genes, Brain and Behavior. 2013. June;12(4):397–404. 10.1111/gbb.12037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Wöhr M, Oddi D, D’Amato FR. Effect of altricial pup ultrasonic vocalization on maternal behavior. In Handbook of Behavioral Neuroscience 2010. January 1 (Vol. 19, pp. 159–166). Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Keverne EB, Kendrick KM. Oxytocin facilitation of maternal behavior in sheep. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1992. June;652(1):83–101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Rich ME, deCárdenas EJ, Lee HJ, Caldwell HK. Impairments in the initiation of maternal behavior in oxytocin receptor knockout mice. PloS One. 2014. June 3;9(6):e98839. 10.1371/journal.pone.0098839 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Francis DD, Young LJ, Meaney MJ, Insel TR. Naturally occurring differences in maternal care are associated with the expression of oxytocin and vasopressin (V1a) receptors: gender differences. Journal of Neuroendocrinology. 2002. May;14(5):349–53. 10.1046/j.0007-1331.2002.00776.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Bosch OJ, Neumann ID. Both oxytocin and vasopressin are mediators of maternal care and aggression in rodents: from central release to sites of action. Hormones and Behavior. 2012. March 1;61(3):293–303. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Feldman R, Gordon I, Schneiderman I, Weisman O, Zagoory-Sharon O. Natural variations in maternal and paternal care are associated with systematic changes in oxytocin following parent–infant contact. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2010. September 1;35(8):1133–41. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.01.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Pedersen CA, Vadlamudi SV, Boccia ML, Amico JA. Maternal behavior deficits in nulliparous oxytocin knockout mice. Genes, Brain and Behavior. 2006. April;5(3):274–81. 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2005.00162.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Liu XY, Li D, Li T, Liu H, Cui D, Liu Y, et al. Effects of intranasal oxytocin on pup deprivation-evoked aberrant maternal behavior and hypogalactia in rat dams and the underlying mechanisms. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2019. February 26;13:122. 10.3389/fnins.2019.00122 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Watarai A, Tsutaki S, Nishimori K, Okuyama T, Mogi K, Kikusui T. The blockade of oxytocin receptors in the paraventricular thalamus reduces maternal crouching behavior over pups in lactating mice. Neuroscience Letters. 2020. February 16;720:134761. 10.1016/j.neulet.2020.134761 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Macbeth AH, Stepp JE, Lee HJ, Young III WS, Caldwell HK. Normal maternal behavior, but increased pup mortality, in conditional oxytocin receptor knockout females. Behavioral Neuroscience. 2010. October;124(5):677. 10.1037/a0020799 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Yoshida M, Takayanagi Y, Inoue K, Kimura T, Young LJ, Onaka T, et al. Evidence that oxytocin exerts anxiolytic effects via oxytocin receptor expressed in serotonergic neurons in mice. Journal of Neuroscience. 2009. February 18;29(7):2259–71. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5593-08.2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Waldherr M, Neumann ID. Centrally released oxytocin mediates mating-induced anxiolysis in male rats. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2007. October 16;104(42):16681–4. 10.1073/pnas.0705860104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.de Oliveira DC, Zuardi AW, Graeff FG, Queiroz RH, Crippa JA. Anxiolytic-like effect of oxytocin in the simulated public speaking test. Journal of Psychopharmacology. 2012. April;26(4):497–504. 10.1177/0269881111400642 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Guzmán YF, Tronson NC, Jovasevic V, Sato K, Guedea AL, Mizukami H, et al. Fear-enhancing effects of septal oxytocin receptors. Nature Neuroscience. 2013. September;16(9):1185–7. 10.1038/nn.3465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Cheryl S Rosenfeld

31 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-37165

An acute dose of intranasal oxytocin rapidly increases maternal communication and maintains maternal care in primiparous postpartum California mice

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Guoynes,

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 points raised during the review process.

Thank you for submitting this intriguing study to Plos One. Three experts in the field have reviewed the manuscript, and all expressed considerable enthusiasm for the studies and conclusions. All three have provided helpful suggestions on how the work may be improved. Please consider whether other statistical models may be used, in particular using the litter as the statistical unit. Some more details in the introduction, as commented on by all reviewers, might be helpful. Please provide additional justification for only considering vocalizations in the ultrasonic range. The comment from Reviewer 2 about intranasal administration of oxytocin should be addressed as this route of administration has become more widely used.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 14 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cheryl S. Rosenfeld, DVM, PhD

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. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information on the animal research and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: In this manuscript the authors describe the results of behavioral experiments examining the effects of intranasal oxytocin on maternal behavior and vocalizations in female California mice. Unlike other rodent species, in which the function of vocalizations are not well described, vocalizations for California mice have been well characterized in the lab and in the field. Furthermore this is one of the few papers to examine how vocalizations are used by a mother to interact with pups. The authors find that intranasal oxytocin enhance maternal vocalizations in the presence of pups but not when separated from pups. This suggests that oxytocin may enhance salience of pup interactions for a mother. Overall the manuscript is well organized. The methods were detailed and experimental procedures were justified. However there are several points that need clarified and some adjustments to statistical analyses might give the authors more power to detect differences. Overall this is a very strong contribution.

Introduction

The authors state that preliminary data indicate that maternal simple sweeps are primarily used in interactions with pups. This is a pretty definitive statement at this point in the manuscript and I was expecting more information about what these vocalizations are and why the authors think they are not used in other contexts. I suggest the authors consider moving some of the details of these call described in the methods to the introduction.

Did the authors predict that oxytocin would affect behaviors during specific stages of the behavioral testing.

Methods

On line 111 the authors should revise “neuroendocrine responses” to “glucocorticoid responses”, as regulation of oxytocin and corticosterone have distinct mechanisms of regulation.

On line 136, reasonable people could disagree that the intranasal administration, which involves scruffing the mouse, is less stressful than an IP or SC injection.

The authors could also state that the behavioral effects of intranasal oxytocin in California mice are consistent with the outcomes of central oxytocin manipulations (Duque-Wilckens et al. 2018, 2020), which also suggests that intranasal OT accesses the brain.

Line 207-208: revise to observer blind to treatment

Line 264-265: the authors say the total number of vocalizations was recorded and used “for comparison”. Please me more specific. Were variables of interest normalized to this variable or was it analyzed separately? Did the total number of vocalizations differ between the two groups?

The authors report several statistical tests that are at nonsignificant trend level. The authors might want to consider correcting for the False Discovery Rate instead of using Bonferroni correction since this approach protects against type I error without sacrificing as much statistical power.

Results

It could be useful to include the age of the pups when intranasal oxytocin/behavioral observations are performed in Figure 1. It might also be more intuitive for the authors to label the microphones for reader.

Please increase the fonts of the axes and labels on all bar and scatter plots, they are hard to read.

Figure 2A: significance symbols are not intuitive, even after checking the figure legend. Specifically, the * comparing the different stages of the test is confusing. The labeling looks like habituation and reunion are different but I think the authors are trying to show that separation is different from the other groups. Consider replacing with a different symbol like a dagger and additional notation to indicate which groups are different.

For figure 3: I suggest the authors discuss behaviors with significant differences first (perhaps total maternal care and then individual behaviors.

On line 355 the authors state that high levels of retrieval are associated with less efficient maternal care. Are studies cited conducted in the home cage or in a novel environment? Effects of oxytocin are context dependent. In virgin female California mice intranasal oxytocin is anxiogenic in a novel environment but anxiolytic in the home cage. The authors should address the role of context when interpreting these results and also the extent to which effects of oxytocin change in dams versus virgins.

For scatterplots, separate regression lines for control and oxytocin groups should be plotted. In most cases these lines will overlap but they are important for the few variables where these slopes differ (eg Fig. 4C).

Discussion

Lines 452-453: the authors should be more precise when describing their results, as only a few key variables were affected by intranasal oxytocin.

Some parts of the discussion are repetitive (pups being deaf is mentioned 2x). Also, why do the authors think that sweeps are decreased in the separation phase.

Line 530: the authors should be more precise in their language. There was no increase in maternal care in the oxytocin group, only the absence of a decrease.

Line 538-547: When discussing effects of oxytocin on anxiety the authors should be aware that oxytocin can have anxiogenic effects, particularly in females/women.

Last line of discussion: This sentence is not in line with the conclusions the authors make earlier in the manuscript where they correctly observe that intranasal oxytocin maintains maternal behavior but does increase it relative to the habituation stage.

Reviewer #2: This article examines the effects of intranasal oxytocin on maternal behaviors, including maternal vocalizations (as well as pup vocalizations), in California mice. It is a well-done study and should be of broad interest to those interested in the neurobiology of maternal behavior – including those interested in human maternal behavior. I do have a few comments below intended to help improve the paper.

Introduction:

Lines 46-47: This sentence is an awkward introduction to neural substrates – they don’t really “complement” vocalizations as they are also involved in generating vocalizations.

Line 81: Not sure that there is actual evidence that these genotypes affect oxytocin receptor availability. I think that it is a presumed relationship.

Line 89: California mice are a great model but not sure why they are “uniquely” suited. Since this is a study of maternal behavior, seems like many rodent species would be suitable.

Lines 96-103: Perhaps predicted effects on pup vocalizations should also be mentioned here (later it is said that no effects were predicted, but that’s not clear here).

Methods:

Line 137: Is this supposed to be “CSF AND plasma concentrations of OXT”?

How many pups were transferred with each mother? All of them? What was the average number of pups for females that got IN OXT vs females which got saline?

Line 207: I would change this to “an observer blind to treatment condition”.

Lines 250-261: The sentence regarding Bonferroni corrections is in this paragraph twice, one can be removed.

Figure 2 legend, section b. “Pups” at the beginning of sentence 3 is not capitalized.

Results:

I think that it is excellent that the data were recorded in such a way that the temporal sequence of mother and pup calls could be synced. Unfortunately, the current analysis does not seem to take full advantage of these data. A time-series analysis, or some type of dyadic analysis, would allow the authors to dig deeper into the interactions between mothers and pups, and the effects of oxytocin on those analyses.

Discussion:

Lines 477-488. I’m not sure that I follow the reasoning here, at least regarding thermal challenge. Wouldn’t thermal conditions alter between separation and reunion, suggesting that USVs should alter as well?

Lines 490-491. Don’t need to repeat the part about pups probably being deaf (it’s also in lines 477-479). Also, even if pups can’t hear, is it possible that the mothers’ bodies would vibrate differently depending on their types of vocalizations? This presumably could be detected by the pups.

Lines 539-547. Please be specific here about what behaviors you are designating as potential “anxiety” behaviors during this test.

Lines 548-549. I thought you just said above that IN OXT maintains rather than increases maternal behavior…

Data Availability

The authors say that all the data are available within the manuscript or supporting information…I don’t see raw data, just means and standard errors.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript describes a very interesting and innovative study investigating the effects of intranasal oxytocin on mothers’ behavioral and vocal responses to their pups, as well as on the pups’ vocalizations, in the California mouse. The study was well designed, and the manuscript is clearly written, for the most part.

My main comments and suggestions are as follows:

Given that California mouse adults and pups produce calls in the audible spectrum, in addition to USVs, it would be helpful to include a rationale for focusing exclusively on USVs.

I was surprised that number of pups per litter was not used as a covariate or, as far as I could tell, used in any other way in analyses. Isn’t this likely to be a major determinant of the number of pup vocalizations produced as well as, perhaps, the amount of maternal care performed?

In the introduction, it would be helpful to provide some information on the time course by which IN OXT has been found to influence behavior in other studies. The specific time course in this study is mentioned briefly in the discussion (L533-534) but nowhere else.

Minor comments:

Figs. 2-5 – I found it very difficult to read the text on the y-axes. Consider putting at least part of this info (e.g., the name of the behavior) above each graph.

L46-47 – The statement that “neural substrates also play an important role…” is so obvious as to be unnecessary, since virtually all mammalian behaviors require neural substrates.

L51-52 – This sentence is somewhat misleading. As written, it suggests that the increase in plasma OXT was co-opted evolutionarily for facilitating maternal care. However, it was presumably the increase in central OXT, rather than in plasma OXT per se, that was co-opted.

L54 – It would be more appropriate to say that estrogen levels prime the neural substrates that respond to OXT, rather than that they prime OXT itself.

L61 – Add “females” after “low grooming” (and possibly after “high grooming”).

L63 – Can you be more specific about the reproductive state of non-lactating females – e.g., were they virgins?

L66 – Change “connect” to “connects” and “activate” to “activates” (if these words refer to dopamine neurons rather than to the AVPV).

L69 – Should “efficiency” be changed to “efficacy”? Either way, I’m not convinced that this statement is supported by the findings summarized above.

L71 – “their” can be deleted.

L89 – Please add the Latin name (currently it’s given a little later in the manuscript).

L89 – The phrase “uniquely suited” seems too strong; certainly, many other species have similarly complex vocal repertoires and could therefore be excellent model species for this sort of work.

For me, it would be helpful to be consistent in referring to the pup calls that were monitored as either “pup USVs” or “pup whines” rather than using both phrases. I realize, though, that other readers might not find this lack of consistency to be a problem.

L94-95 – The statement that “maternal simple sweeps and pup wines are the primary maternal USVs” is confusing, as it seems to suggest that pup whines are produced by mothers, not by pups. Remove “maternal” before “USVs”?

L101-103 – To use parallel sentence structure, either remove “enhance” in L102 or add a verb before “maternal USV production”.

L110 – Delete “stress” – dexamethasone isn’t a stressor! “Stress” can be replaced with “challenge,” but this isn’t necessary.

L110 – Change “between” to “in” or “within”.

L108-111 – It’s not clear how this statement is relevant to this paragraph. Yes, females across this age range have been shown to have similar cort responses to CRH and DEX, but that’s not necessarily applicable to “neuroendocrine responses” in general.

L114 – Confusing what they were randomly assigned to. Do you mean that female and male pairmates were randomly assigned to one another or that the pairs were randomly assigned to something (presumably experimental condition)?

L116 – Remove “Female”.

L120 – Change “Treatments” to something like “Mothers” or “Mice” or “Subjects”.

L129-130 – Was the cannula needle alternated between nostrils within individual animals or across animals?

L130 – “Mice” in this line presumably refers to house mice (Mus) and not California mice. Please clarify this, as some readers won’t know that California mice aren’t “real mice” phylogenetically.

L138 – Change “human” to “humans”.

L143 – Delete “that”.

L155 – Harris et al. 2017 isn’t in the reference list, and it’s not clear what paper is being referred to.

L156-157 – The relevance of this sentence about blunted behavioral responses in parents isn’t clear.

L260-261 – This sentence is identical to one earlier in the paragraph. Delete.

L266-267 – I don’t understand why t-tests were used to examine main effects of treatment. Wasn’t the effect of treatment discernible from the 2-way ANOVAs, which I assume examined the effects of test phase and treatment?

L346-347 – This sentence is confusing for two reasons. First, it’s not clear which test phase it refers to (I assume it’s the beginning of the reunion phase, but that should be stated explicitly). Second, the fact that it comes right after two sentences about the use of delta scores seems to suggest that this sentence, too, refers to delta scores, but that’s not the case.

L355-357 – Please indicate which species this sentence refers to.

L385 – The subheading sounds awkward. Consider changing to “Correlations of maternal care with maternal USVs and pup USVs”.

L424-425 – The phrasing “had no effect on…” strikes me as odd, since this section talks about correlations rather than causal relationships. Change to “was not correlated with”?

L438 – Omit “later in life” since this is implicit in “lifelong”?

L452-453 – Not clear what “the control increase in the habituation phase” refers to.

L455 – Marler & Monari 2020 is not in the reference list.

L485-488 – Please specify the species being discussed.

L490 – The phrase “driven by the mother” isn’t clear, because it could refer to either the mother’s vocalizations on the mother’s responses to the pups’ vocalizations. Please clarify.

L504 – The phrase “sheep and ewes” is redundant. Say either “lambs and ewes” or simply “sheep”.

L506 – Change “ewes” to “lambs”.

L507 – I don’t understand the phrase “but using high frequency calls to during vocal exchanges.” Is “to” meant to be “too” or is there a missing word?

L521 – Add a comma after the reference.

L522-525 – Please specify what species are being referred to.

L550-552 – If I understand this sentence correctly, it’s meant to refer to higher endogenous levels of OXT in mothers than in other females. If so, then “IN” should be removed.

Fig. 3D caption – Indicate that this treatment effect was not seen in Controls, or that the net positive effect of IN OXT was significant relative to Controls?

Supp. Fig. 1 – The first three definitions contain typos.

Supp. Fig. 1 – It would seem that mothers often meet the criteria for “freezing” while huddling their pups. Are these two behaviors mutually exclusive? Please clarify.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0244033. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244033.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Feb 2021

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript the authors describe the results of behavioral experiments examining the effects of intranasal oxytocin on maternal behavior and vocalizations in female California mice. Unlike other rodent species, in which the function of vocalizations are not well described, vocalizations for California mice have been well characterized in the lab and in the field. Furthermore this is one of the few papers to examine how vocalizations are used by a mother to interact with pups. The authors find that intranasal oxytocin enhance maternal vocalizations in the presence of pups but not when separated from pups. This suggests that oxytocin may enhance salience of pup interactions for a mother. Overall the manuscript is well organized. The methods were detailed and experimental procedures were justified. However there are several points that need clarified and some adjustments to statistical analyses might give the authors more power to detect differences. Overall this is a very strong contribution.

Introduction

The authors state that preliminary data indicate that maternal simple sweeps are primarily used in interactions with pups. This is a pretty definitive statement at this point in the manuscript and I was expecting more information about what these vocalizations are and why the authors think they are not used in other contexts. I suggest the authors consider moving some of the details of these call described in the methods to the introduction.

-L102-109. Clarified the statement to include that previous recordings suggested maternal simple sweeps and pup whines were the primary call types used in the context of mother-pup interactions (vs. complex sweeps, SVs, barks), and that both simple sweeps and pup whines can occur in other social contexts

Did the authors predict that oxytocin would affect behaviors during specific stages of the behavioral testing.

-L121-122. Clarified to predict that we predicted separation of mother and pups would disrupt pro-social effects of OXT

Methods

On line 111 the authors should revise “neuroendocrine responses” to “glucocorticoid responses”, as regulation of oxytocin and corticosterone have distinct mechanisms of regulation.

-L135. Amended

On line 136, reasonable people could disagree that the intranasal administration, which involves scruffing the mouse, is less stressful than an IP or SC injection.

-L171. Removed IP injection

The authors could also state that the behavioral effects of intranasal oxytocin in California mice are consistent with the outcomes of central oxytocin manipulations (Duque-Wilckens et al. 2018, 2020), which also suggests that intranasal OT accesses the brain.

-177-179. Amended

Line 207-208: revise to observer blind to treatment

-L253. Amended

Line 264-265: the authors say the total number of vocalizations was recorded and used “for comparison”. Please me more specific. Were variables of interest normalized to this variable or was it analyzed separately? Did the total number of vocalizations differ between the two groups?

-L313-314. Amended to reflect USVs/sec was used to account for time differences in the contact vs separation phases ( 5 min vs. 3 min)

The authors report several statistical tests that are at nonsignificant trend level. The authors might want to consider correcting for the False Discovery Rate instead of using Bonferroni correction since this approach protects against type I error without sacrificing as much statistical power.

-L301-302. Amended corrections to use the Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate correction, but unfortunately the trending results were still trending (albeit closer to significant).

Results

It could be useful to include the age of the pups when intranasal oxytocin/behavioral observations are performed in Figure 1. It might also be more intuitive for the authors to label the microphones for reader.

-Amended

Please increase the fonts of the axes and labels on all bar and scatter plots, they are hard to read.

-Amended to increase axes size

Figure 2A: significance symbols are not intuitive, even after checking the figure legend. Specifically, the * comparing the different stages of the test is confusing. The labeling looks like habituation and reunion are different but I think the authors are trying to show that separation is different from the other groups. Consider replacing with a different symbol like a dagger and additional notation to indicate which groups are different.

-L371-372. Amended

For figure 3: I suggest the authors discuss behaviors with significant differences first (perhaps total maternal care and then individual behaviors.

-We did not make this change because we were concerned that if we make total maternal care the first graph, that readers may not realize that most of the difference in maternal care is coming from the change in retrievals. We would be fine changing this if the reviewer insists.

On line 355 the authors state that high levels of retrieval are associated with less efficient maternal care. Are studies cited conducted in the home cage or in a novel environment? Effects of oxytocin are context dependent. In virgin female California mice intranasal oxytocin is anxiogenic in a novel environment but anxiolytic in the home cage. The authors should address the role of context when interpreting these results and also the extent to which effects of oxytocin change in dams versus virgins.

-L414-416. Amended—these studies do not specifically manipulate the OXT system, they just examine amount of time or number of retrievals on a desired maternal outcome (all pups in nest, pups located and taken back to nest)

For scatterplots, separate regression lines for control and oxytocin groups should be plotted. In most cases these lines will overlap but they are important for the few variables where these slopes differ (eg Fig. 4C).

-Added dashed line for each treatment

Discussion

Lines 452-453: the authors should be more precise when describing their results, as only a few key variables were affected by intranasal oxytocin.

-L523. Amended

Some parts of the discussion are repetitive (pups being deaf is mentioned 2x). Also, why do the authors think that sweeps are decreased in the separation phase.

-L513-520. Added speculation on why fewer simple sweeps occur during separation

Line 530: the authors should be more precise in their language. There was no increase in maternal care in the oxytocin group, only the absence of a decrease.

-L611. Amended

Line 538-547: When discussing effects of oxytocin on anxiety the authors should be aware that oxytocin can have anxiogenic effects, particularly in females/women.

-L630-632. Amended to add references for anxiogenic effects of OXT

Last line of discussion: This sentence is not in line with the conclusions the authors make earlier in the manuscript where they correctly observe that intranasal oxytocin maintains maternal behavior but does increase it relative to the habituation stage.

- L636. Amended

Reviewer #2: This article examines the effects of intranasal oxytocin on maternal behaviors, including maternal vocalizations (as well as pup vocalizations), in California mice. It is a well-done study and should be of broad interest to those interested in the neurobiology of maternal behavior – including those interested in human maternal behavior. I do have a few comments below intended to help improve the paper.

Introduction:

Lines 46-47: This sentence is an awkward introduction to neural substrates – they don’t really “complement” vocalizations as they are also involved in generating vocalizations.

-L46-47. Amended

Line 81: Not sure that there is actual evidence that these genotypes affect oxytocin receptor availability. I think that it is a presumed relationship.

-L89. Amended

Line 89: California mice are a great model but not sure why they are “uniquely” suited. Since this is a study of maternal behavior, seems like many rodent species would be suitable.

-L98. Amended

Lines 96-103: Perhaps predicted effects on pup vocalizations should also be mentioned here (later it is said that no effects were predicted, but that’s not clear here).

-L116-117. Amended

Methods:

Line 137: Is this supposed to be “CSF AND plasma concentrations of OXT”?

-L172. Amended

How many pups were transferred with each mother? All of them? What was the average number of pups for females that got IN OXT vs females which got saline?

-L141-145. All pups were added—amended methods to include mean and discussion of potential use in models as a covariate. In this experiment, adding pup number as a covariate did not explain additional variance in the models and reduced statistical power.

Line 207: I would change this to “an observer blind to treatment condition”.

-L253. Amended

Lines 250-261: The sentence regarding Bonferroni corrections is in this paragraph twice, one can be removed.

-L309. Amended

Figure 2 legend, section b. “Pups” at the beginning of sentence 3 is not capitalized.

-L361. Amended

Results:

I think that it is excellent that the data were recorded in such a way that the temporal sequence of mother and pup calls could be synced. Unfortunately, the current analysis does not seem to take full advantage of these data. A time-series analysis, or some type of dyadic analysis, would allow the authors to dig deeper into the interactions between mothers and pups, and the effects of oxytocin on those analyses.

When scoring behavior, we had another measure record: “contact” or “no contact” throughout the habituation and reunion phases, but this data was because the behavioral videos could only reasonably be scored by hand to the second, but in one second, there may be a bout of up to 20 sweep calls and it was difficult to decide whether to code this into the “contact” or “no contact” if it occurred during a behavior transition. Cutting out the time around a behavioral transition was considered, but this left more missing data for animals that changed their behavior frequently (from retrieving to rearing to huddling to walking) with less data than those mice that spent the majority of their time engaged in mostly maternal behavior (“contact”). We agree that it would fascinating to get a better look at the temporal sequence of calls and behavior, but I think that this would be best paired with automatic software behavioral coding to get an even more precise temporal sequence.

Discussion:

Lines 477-488. I’m not sure that I follow the reasoning here, at least regarding thermal challenge. Wouldn’t thermal conditions alter between separation and reunion, suggesting that USVs should alter as well?

-L558-563. Amended to add that calls in response to thermal challenges happen at first (i.e. first few minutes).

Lines 490-491. Don’t need to repeat the part about pups probably being deaf (it’s also in lines 477-479). Also, even if pups can’t hear, is it possible that the mothers’ bodies would vibrate differently depending on their types of vocalizations? This presumably could be detected by the pups.

-L552. Removed the second ref to pups being deaf. We also wondered about pups ability to detect vibrations, but could not find sources to validate this assumption

Lines 539-547. Please be specific here about what behaviors you are designating as potential “anxiety” behaviors during this test.

-L626-627. Amended

Lines 548-549. I thought you just said above that IN OXT maintains rather than increases maternal behavior…

-L636. Amended

Data Availability

The authors say that all the data are available within the manuscript or supporting information…I don’t see raw data, just means and standard errors.

-Uploading data to Open Science Framework

Reviewer #3: This manuscript describes a very interesting and innovative study investigating the effects of intranasal oxytocin on mothers’ behavioral and vocal responses to their pups, as well as on the pups’ vocalizations, in the California mouse. The study was well designed, and the manuscript is clearly written, for the most part.

My main comments and suggestions are as follows:

Given that California mouse adults and pups produce calls in the audible spectrum, in addition to USVs, it would be helpful to include a rationale for focusing exclusively on USVs.

L282-283. Added a section to the methods section to include that some harmonics in the pup whine USVs can be heard in the audible spectrum. There is a note earlier in the methods section explains the only calls that we saw from mothers during this test were the simple sweep calls. Mothers can make calls in the audible frequency range (the SV calls), but we did not observe these call types in the audio files.

I was surprised that number of pups per litter was not used as a covariate or, as far as I could tell, used in any other way in analyses. Isn’t this likely to be a major determinant of the number of pup vocalizations produced as well as, perhaps, the amount of maternal care performed?

L141-150. Excellent suggestion. I added pup number as a covariate to the models, but it did not explain any additional variance and using the extra parameter cost statistical power in several of the models. Below is the additional information I included in the text:

Number of pups was considered for use as a covariate, but in the statistical models, including this variable a) did not explain additional variance and b) reduced the power of the statistical comparison. Pup number across treatments was very similar—average number of pups for mothers in the saline condition was 2.11, and average number of pups for mothers in the OXT condition was 1.91.

In the introduction, it would be helpful to provide some information on the time course by which IN OXT has been found to influence behavior in other studies. The specific time course in this study is mentioned briefly in the discussion (L533-534) but nowhere else.

-L113-117. Added time course information to intro

Minor comments:

Figs. 2-5 – I found it very difficult to read the text on the y-axes. Consider putting at least part of this info (e.g., the name of the behavior) above each graph.

-Amended axes to be larger

L46-47 – The statement that “neural substrates also play an important role…” is so obvious as to be unnecessary, since virtually all mammalian behaviors require neural substrates.

-L46-47. Amended to combine two sentences and remove neural substrates

L51-52 – This sentence is somewhat misleading. As written, it suggests that the increase in plasma OXT was co-opted evolutionarily for facilitating maternal care. However, it was presumably the increase in central OXT, rather than in plasma OXT per se, that was co-opted.

-L53. Removed plasma

L54 – It would be more appropriate to say that estrogen levels prime the neural substrates that respond to OXT, rather than that they prime OXT itself.

-L57. Amended

L61 – Add “females” after “low grooming” (and possibly after “high grooming”).

-L64. Amended

L63 – Can you be more specific about the reproductive state of non-lactating females – e.g., were they virgins?

-L66. Amended—they were not virgins and were both maternally-experienced

L66 – Change “connect” to “connects” and “activate” to “activates” (if these words refer to dopamine neurons rather than to the AVPV).

-L69. Amended

L69 – Should “efficiency” be changed to “efficacy”? Either way, I’m not convinced that this statement is supported by the findings summarized above.

-L72. Amended wording to coordinating

L71 – “their” can be deleted.

-L74. Amended

L89 – Please add the Latin name (currently it’s given a little later in the manuscript).

-L-97. Amended

L89 – The phrase “uniquely suited” seems too strong; certainly, many other species have similarly complex vocal repertoires and could therefore be excellent model species for this sort of work.

-L-98. Amended to “well-suited”

For me, it would be helpful to be consistent in referring to the pup calls that were monitored as either “pup USVs” or “pup whines” rather than using both phrases. I realize, though, that other readers might not find this lack of consistency to be a problem.

-Pup USVs across species can vary in structure significantly. For P. cal, pup USVs, we typically refer to them as “pup whines” whereas other species like rats and mice refer to the calls as “pup USVs”

L94-95 – The statement that “maternal simple sweeps and pup wines are the primary maternal USVs” is confusing, as it seems to suggest that pup whines are produced by mothers, not by pups. Remove “maternal” before “USVs”?

- L102-109. Amended to clarify, add more context and references

L101-103 – To use parallel sentence structure, either remove “enhance” in L102 or add a verb before “maternal USV production”.

-L120. Amended

L110 – Delete “stress” – dexamethasone isn’t a stressor! “Stress” can be replaced with “challenge,” but this isn’t necessary.

-L129. Amended

L110 – Change “between” to “in” or “within”.

-L129. Amended

L108-111 – It’s not clear how this statement is relevant to this paragraph. Yes, females across this age range have been shown to have similar cort responses to CRH and DEX, but that’s not necessarily applicable to “neuroendocrine responses” in general.

-L-135. Amended to glucocorticoid

L114 – Confusing what they were randomly assigned to. Do you mean that female and male pairmates were randomly assigned to one another or that the pairs were randomly assigned to something (presumably experimental condition)?

-L-138. Amended to reflect that pairings were random

L116 – Remove “Female”.

-L140. Amended

L120 – Change “Treatments” to something like “Mothers” or “Mice” or “Subjects”.

-L148. Amended

L129-130 – Was the cannula needle alternated between nostrils within individual animals or across animals?

-L164. Clarified that it was within individuals

L130 – “Mice” in this line presumably refers to house mice (Mus) and not California mice. Please clarify this, as some readers won’t know that California mice aren’t “real mice” phylogenetically.

-L164. Amended to rodents

L138 – Change “human” to “humans”.

-Amended

L143 – Delete “that”.

-L180. Deleted

L155 – Harris et al. 2017 isn’t in the reference list, and it’s not clear what paper is being referred to.

-L196. Added Harris BN, Perea-Rodriguez JP, Saltzman W. Acute effects of corticosterone injection on paternal behavior in California mouse (Peromyscus californicus) fathers. Hormones and Behavior. 2011 Nov 1;60(5):666-75.

L156-157 – The relevance of this sentence about blunted behavioral responses in parents isn’t clear.

-L201. This is just more evidence that typical stressors and novel scents (even if potentially warning of danger) do not elicit a strong stress response

L260-261 – This sentence is identical to one earlier in the paragraph. Delete.

-L309. Deleted.

L266-267 – I don’t understand why t-tests were used to examine main effects of treatment. Wasn’t the effect of treatment discernible from the 2-way ANOVAs, which I assume examined the effects of test phase and treatment?

-L334. The ANOVA results and t-test results were very similar, but we decided to use the reunion-habituation change score and used t-tests for those findings (Figure 3 vs. Figure 2).

L346-347 – This sentence is confusing for two reasons. First, it’s not clear which test phase it refers to (I assume it’s the beginning of the reunion phase, but that should be stated explicitly). Second, the fact that it comes right after two sentences about the use of delta scores seems to suggest that this sentence, too, refers to delta scores, but that’s not the case.

-L403. Amended

L355-357 – Please indicate which species this sentence refers to.

-L414. Amended

L385 – The subheading sounds awkward. Consider changing to “Correlations of maternal care with maternal USVs and pup USVs”.

-L446. Amended

L424-425 – The phrasing “had no effect on…” strikes me as odd, since this section talks about correlations rather than causal relationships. Change to “was not correlated with”?

-L489. Amended

L438 – Omit “later in life” since this is implicit in “lifelong”?

-L502. Amended

L452-453 – Not clear what “the control increase in the habituation phase” refers to.

-L523. Amended

L455 – Marler & Monari 2020 is not in the reference list.

-L526. Amended

L485-488 – Please specify the species being discussed.

-L559. Amended

L490 – The phrase “driven by the mother” isn’t clear, because it could refer to either the mother’s vocalizations on the mother’s responses to the pups’ vocalizations. Please clarify.

-L565-569. Amended

L504 – The phrase “sheep and ewes” is redundant. Say either “lambs and ewes” or simply “sheep”.

-L582. Amended

L506 – Change “ewes” to “lambs”.

-L584. Amended

L507 – I don’t understand the phrase “but using high frequency calls to during vocal exchanges.” Is “to” meant to be “too” or is there a missing word?

-L585. Removed “to”

L521 – Add a comma after the reference.

-L602. Amended

L522-525 – Please specify what species are being referred to.

-L604. Amended

L550-552 – If I understand this sentence correctly, it’s meant to refer to higher endogenous levels of OXT in mothers than in other females. If so, then “IN” should be removed.

-L638. Amended

Fig. 3D caption – Indicate that this treatment effect was not seen in Controls, or that the net positive effect of IN OXT was significant relative to Controls?

-Amended

Supp. Fig. 1 – The first three definitions contain typos.

-Amended

Supp. Fig. 1 – It would seem that mothers often meet the criteria for “freezing” while huddling their pups. Are these two behaviors mutually exclusive? Please clarify.

-Amended

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to PONE_reviewer comments Guoynes 2021.docx

Decision Letter 1

Cheryl S Rosenfeld

19 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-37165R1

An acute dose of intranasal oxytocin rapidly increases maternal communication and maintains maternal care in primiparous postpartum California mice

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Guoynes,

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 points raised during the review process.

Thank you for submitting this revised paper. The three original reviewers were very positive about the updated work. There are a few minor corrections and clarifications suggested before it can be considered for publication. Appreciate if you could respond to these suggestions. A final decision can then be made.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 03 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Cheryl S. Rosenfeld, DVM, PhD

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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: All of my comments have been addressed in the revisions. The authors did a very nice job, this is a great contribution.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors were responsive to my previous comments, and the manuscript has improved. However, I have quite a few additional suggestions for increasing the clarify of the writing.

L12 – Mention saline controls.

L19 - Not clear what “Maternal-pup USVs were correlated upon reunion” means – the number of USVs? Frequency? Timing? (Also, “Maternal-pup USVs” itself isn’t clear; try using something like “Mothers’ and pups’ USVs” instead.)

L20 – “more positive change” is confusing. Change to something like “larger increase”?

L24 – Change “single dose of” to “single treatment with”?

L32 – Explain “pup whines.”

L46-48 – It’s somewhat misleading to say that OXT “likely plays an important role in… producing behaviors that support maternal care,” since we already know this statement to be true (as summarized in the following sentences.”

L56-58 – The point about “many species” doesn’t follow from the previous sentences, which mention only rats and mice.

L63 – As I mentioned in my previous review, I find the phrase “both non-lactating and lactating maternally-experienced females” confusing because it can be interpreted to mean that only the lactating females were maternally experienced. Maybe try rephrasing as “maternally experienced females that were either lactating or non-lactating”.

L68-69 – This sentence is very similar to the one at the end of the previous paragraph, which raises the question of why these two paragraphs are separate. Also, the first sentence of this paragraph (L59-60) seems to imply that the paragraph will focus on OXT receptors, which isn’t true of the second half of the paragraph. Consider removing the two sentences on receptors, since you didn’t quantify receptors in this study, and either reorganizing or consolidating the remainder of this paragraph and the previous paragraph.

L84 – Consider starting a new paragraph with the sentence beginning “A key social behavior…” Also, you might want to add something like “in the context of OXT” after “not been measured”.

L98 – Pultorak et al. 2017 is cited twice.

L104 – Change “have” to either “can have” or “has.”

L120 – Maybe change “responses” to “responsiveness” to make the statement a little broader? As is, it seems to refer only to the CRH and DEX challenges mentioned earlier in the same sentence.

L120-121 – The description of pair housing/family composition is out of order, since you don’t mention the actual pairing of animals until after the next sentence.

L124 – Again, it’s a little confusing to mention that pairs produced offspring before talking about when females were visibly pregnant (subsequent sentence).

L150 – Has IN treatment been shown to be less stressful than ICV treatment? If not, please indicate that this is presumed to be the case, rather than stating it as a fact.

L224 – The first part of this sentence is confusing. Do you mean that the videos were scored in random order (rather than the behaviors themselves)?

L294-297 – This seems backward. If scores from the reunion phase were subtracted from scores from the habituation phase, then positive difference scores indicate that habituation-phase scores were higher than reunion-phase scores.

L340-341 – The point about “both consistency and differences” is confusing, and the sentence overall isn’t particularly informative. I suggest that you delete it.

L347 – It’s not essential, but I think it would be helpful to specify that you’re referring to the number of maternal and pup calls (rather than some other measure). The same point applies to several other parts of the manuscript, including L408-411 and L440-441.

L396-403 – The first sentence of this paragraph indicates that the following analyses focus on effects of IN OXT, but the next two sentences sound like they’re describing within-subjects changes (or lack thereof) over time rather than effects of IN OXT. Please clarify.

L474 – As described in the methods, mothers had “multisensory pup experience,” although without touch, during the separation phase. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to emphasize the presence or absence of tactile stimuli in this sentence, rather than including this point only parenthetically. Same point for L480.

L477 – Delete “in” and “be.”

L561-563 – Which species do these references refer to?

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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. 2021 Apr 22;16(4):e0244033. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244033.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


30 Mar 2021

Reviewer #1: All of my comments have been addressed in the revisions. The authors did a very nice job, this is a great contribution.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors were responsive to my previous comments, and the manuscript has improved. However, I have quite a few additional suggestions for increasing the clarify of the writing.

L12 – Mention saline controls.

L12—Amended

L19 - Not clear what “Maternal-pup USVs were correlated upon reunion” means – the number of USVs? Frequency? Timing? (Also, “Maternal-pup USVs” itself isn’t clear; try using something like “Mothers’ and pups’ USVs” instead.)

L19—Amended

L20 – “more positive change” is confusing. Change to something like “larger increase”?

L21—Amended

L24 – Change “single dose of” to “single treatment with”?

L28—Amended

L32 – Explain “pup whines.”

L38—Amended

L46-48 – It’s somewhat misleading to say that OXT “likely plays an important role in… producing behaviors that support maternal care,” since we already know this statement to be true (as summarized in the following sentences.”

L53—Removed likely

L56-58 – The point about “many species” doesn’t follow from the previous sentences, which mention only rats and mice.

L64—Amended

L63 – As I mentioned in my previous review, I find the phrase “both non-lactating and lactating maternally-experienced females” confusing because it can be interpreted to mean that only the lactating females were maternally experienced. Maybe try rephrasing as “maternally experienced females that were either lactating or non-lactating”.

L69-70—Amended

L68-69 – This sentence is very similar to the one at the end of the previous paragraph, which raises the question of why these two paragraphs are separate. Also, the first sentence of this paragraph (L59-60) seems to imply that the paragraph will focus on OXT receptors, which isn’t true of the second half of the paragraph. Consider removing the two sentences on receptors, since you didn’t quantify receptors in this study, and either reorganizing or consolidating the remainder of this paragraph and the previous paragraph.

L64-74—Amended

L84 – Consider starting a new paragraph with the sentence beginning “A key social behavior…” Also, you might want to add something like “in the context of OXT” after “not been measured”.

L104—Amended

L98 – Pultorak et al. 2017 is cited twice.

L117—Amended

L104 – Change “have” to either “can have” or “has.”

L123—Amended

L120 – Maybe change “responses” to “responsiveness” to make the statement a little broader? As is, it seems to refer only to the CRH and DEX challenges mentioned earlier in the same sentence.

L104—Amended

L120-121 – The description of pair housing/family composition is out of order, since you don’t mention the actual pairing of animals until after the next sentence.

L140—Amended

L124 – Again, it’s a little confusing to mention that pairs produced offspring before talking about when females were visibly pregnant (subsequent sentence).

L144-145—Amended

L150 – Has IN treatment been shown to be less stressful than ICV treatment? If not, please indicate that this is presumed to be the case, rather than stating it as a fact.

L172—Amended

L224 – The first part of this sentence is confusing. Do you mean that the videos were scored in random order (rather than the behaviors themselves)?

L246—Amended

L294-297 – This seems backward. If scores from the reunion phase were subtracted from scores from the habituation phase, then positive difference scores indicate that habituation-phase scores were higher than reunion-phase scores.

L318—Amended

L340-341 – The point about “both consistency and differences” is confusing, and the sentence overall isn’t particularly informative. I suggest that you delete it.

L364-365—Amended

L347 – It’s not essential, but I think it would be helpful to specify that you’re referring to the number of maternal and pup calls (rather than some other measure). The same point applies to several other parts of the manuscript, including L408-411 and L440-441.

L371, 436—Amended

L396-403 – The first sentence of this paragraph indicates that the following analyses focus on effects of IN OXT, but the next two sentences sound like they’re describing within-subjects changes (or lack thereof) over time rather than effects of IN OXT. Please clarify.

L426—Amended

L474 – As described in the methods, mothers had “multisensory pup experience,” although without touch, during the separation phase. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to emphasize the presence or absence of tactile stimuli in this sentence, rather than including this point only parenthetically. Same point for L480.

L502. 508—Amended

L477 – Delete “in” and “be.”

L505—Amended

L561-563 – Which species do these references refer to?

L595-596—Amended

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Review Comments Rd2.docx

Decision Letter 2

Cheryl S Rosenfeld

6 Apr 2021

An acute dose of intranasal oxytocin rapidly increases maternal communication and maintains maternal care in primiparous postpartum California mice

PONE-D-20-37165R2

Dear Dr. Guoynes,

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,

Cheryl S. Rosenfeld, DVM, PhD

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Cheryl S Rosenfeld

12 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-37165R2

An acute dose of intranasal oxytocin rapidly increases maternal communication and maintains maternal care in primiparous postpartum California mice

Dear Dr. Guoynes:

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. Cheryl S. Rosenfeld

Section 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. Ethogram with description of behaviors measured.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Means and SEMs of behaviors measured.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to PONE_reviewer comments Guoynes 2021.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Review Comments Rd2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES