Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 30;16(7):e0249323. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249323

Brief communication: Plasma cortisol concentration is affected by lactation, but not intra-nasal oxytocin treatment, in beef cows

Brooklyn K Wagner 1,2, Alejandro E Relling 2, Justin D Kieffer 3, Anthony J Parker 2,*
Editor: Juan J Loor4
PMCID: PMC8323922  PMID: 34329295

Abstract

In mammals, including sheep and mice, lactation attenuates the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis and plasma cortisol concentration. Oxytocin, one neuropeptide present in the blood during lactation, may contribute to such stress attenuation. Providing oxytocin intra-nasally increases plasma oxytocin concentration in cattle and can be used in non-lactating cows to mirror plasma oxytocin concentration of lactating cows. Therefore, our hypothesis was that there would be no difference in plasma cortisol between non-lactating beef cows intra-nasally administered oxytocin and lactating beef cows intra-nasally treated with saline. Twenty Bos taurus cows were randomly allocated by lactational status to one of four treatments, in a 2×2 factorial arrangement: 1) Non-lactating, saline (NL-S; n = 5); 2) Non-lactating, oxytocin (NL-OXT; n = 5); 3) Lactating, saline (L-S; n = 5); and 4) Lactating, oxytocin (L-OXT; n = 5). Two hours pre-treatment, cows were catheterized, moved to their appropriate chute and baseline blood samples were collected at -60, -45, -30, and 0 minutes before treatments were administered. Directly following the 0-minute sample, cows were administered their intra-nasal treatment via a mucosal atomization device. Subsequently, blood was collected at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, and 120 minutes. Non-lactating cows had greater (P = 0.02) plasma cortisol concentration compared with lactating cows. There was no lactation by treatment interactions for either plasma cortisol (P = 0.55) or oxytocin (P = 0.89) concentration. Although a treatment by time interaction was identified for oxytocin (P < 0.0001), there was no main effect of lactation on plasma oxytocin concentration (P = 0.34). Similar oxytocin and dissimilar cortisol concentration in lactating and non-lactating cows indicate that oxytocin alone cannot be responsible for reduced plasma cortisol in lactating ruminants. Further investigations are needed to elucidate alternative mechanisms that may be involved in the stress hypo-responsive condition of lactating mammals.

Introduction

In mammals, including sheep and mice, lactation attenuates the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis and plasma cortisol concentration [1, 2]. One important neuropeptide present in blood during lactation is oxytocin [3]. In a number of species, oxytocin attenuates the HPA axis activation [1, 46]; however, oxytocin can potentiate the HPA axis as well, resulting in greater plasma cortisol, in some species [7, 8]. Additionally, intra-nasal oxytocin treatment results in widespread dispersal of oxytocin within the brain in rodents and non-human primates [9, 10] and has attenuated increases in adrenocorticotropin hormone (another effector within the HPA axis) in non-human primates [11]. Given these results, supplementing oxytocin intra-nasally may benefit production cattle undergoing routine, yet stressful, husbandry procedures (e.g. transportation) via stress reduction and subsequent improvements to both production and welfare outcomes. However, the consequence of oxytocin treatment is highly dependent upon species [8], stressor [1, 4], physiological state [12], and route of administration [4, 13].

In ruminants, sufficient plasma oxytocin concentration is critical to promoting parturition and ensuring milk excretion. In dairy cows, complete milk removal requires plasma oxytocin concentration to be greater than basal concentration [14]. In addition, Ralph and Tilbrook report greater plasma oxytocin concentration and reduced plasma cortisol concentration in lactating ewes exposed to psycho-social stress for four hours compared with non-lactating ewes [1]. However, non-lactating beef cattle given oxytocin intra-nasally and exposed to restraint and isolation stress did not experience HPA axis attenuation [8]. Given that intra-nasal oxytocin supplementation results in a plasma concentration comparable to or greater than those reported in lactating ruminants [1, 15], the stressor is likely playing a substantial role [8]. Therefore, authors of the present study aimed to examine the effects of oxytocin administration independent of stressor and hypothesized that there would be no difference in plasma cortisol between non-lactating beef cows intra-nasally administered oxytocin and lactating beef cows intra-nasally treated with saline.

Materials and methods

All experimental procedures were reviewed and approved by The Ohio State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (#2017A00000012).

Animal management and experimental design

Twenty Bos taurus cows of Angus genetic type (2–10 years of age, 510 ± 72 kg mean ± SEM bodyweight) were used in the present study. Lactating cows were 4 to 6 weeks into lactation. Cows were selected from the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center’s beef herd at the Eastern Agricultural Research Station in Caldwell, Ohio. By age and lactational status, cows were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups, in a 2×2 factorial arrangement: 1) Non-lactating, saline (NL-S; 0.015 mL/kg of bodyweight 0.9% isotonic saline; n = 5); 2) Non-lactating, oxytocin (NL-OXT; 0.60 IU/kg of bodyweight oxytocin; n = 5); 3) Lactating, saline (L-S; n = 5); and 4) Lactating, oxytocin (L-OXT; n = 3). Four cows were tested at a time (i.e., one from each treatment group), either in the morning or afternoon, over a three-day period. All cows were restrained in a cattle chute with a head bail. The calves (1–2 months of age) of lactating cows were kept in front of their dam to allow for visual and nose-to-nose contact between the calf and dam for the duration of the study.

Catheterization, treatment administration and sampling

Two hours prior to treatment, cows were catheterized and then moved to their assigned chute area. Briefly, their heads were restrained to the side of the head chute to allow open access to the jugular vein. A 5 cm × 5 cm area was clipped over the jugular vein and a baseline blood sample was collected. To begin catheter placement, a local anesthetic (3 mL, 2% Lidocaine Hydrochloride injectable, Vedco Inc., St. Joseph, Missouri, USA) was injected subcutaneously at the site of catheter placement. Betadine® surgical scrub (Purdue Pharma L.P., Stamford, CT, USA) was used to clean the area (minimum of three passes), followed by the removal of surgical scrub by alcohol (70% ethanol). A 14-gauge × 13.3cm indwelling intravenous catheter (Becton, Dickinson, and Co., Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) was placed into the jugular vein. Catheters were secured to the skin with sutures and extension sets (i.v. extension set 36”, International WIN Ltd, PA, USA) were secured to the top of the neck using Elastikon® (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Cows were then moved to their appropriate chute and allowed to rest, during which time cows were able to move their head from side to side. Blood sampling was staggered based on the time of catheterization for each animal.

Baseline blood samples were taken prior to intra-nasal administration of oxytocin or saline treatments, at -60, -30, -15, and 0 minutes into a 10 mL syringe via jugular catheter. Directly following the 0-minute sample, the cow’s head was restrained by placing the cow’s head into the head bail, fitting a halter to her head, and tying the halter to the right side of the head bail. The assigned intra-nasal treatment (S, isotonic saline or OXT, Oxytocin, 20 IU/mL Vetone®, Bimeda-MTC Animal Health Inc., Ontario, Canada) was administered with a mucosal atomization device (Nasal™ Teleflex® Inc., Morrisville, NC) by the attending veterinarian. The dose rate of oxytocin (0.60 IU/kg of bodyweight) was chosen based on a previous report in beef cattle [8]. Doses ranged from 12 to 19 mL, dependent upon body weight. Half of each dose was administered into each nostril. Subsequently, 10 mL of blood was collected via the jugular vein catheter into a 10 mL syringe at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, and 120 minutes. Collected blood was transferred into two Vacutainer™ tubes (lithium heparin and EDTA), inverted a minimum of eight times, and immediately placed on ice (4°C) until centrifugation. After sampling was complete, catheters were removed, and the animals were released back into the herd after visual assessment by the attending veterinarian.

Sample analyses

All blood tubes were centrifuged at 3,000 × g at 4°C for 15 minutes, after which plasma was removed with a disposable pipette and stored at -20°C until required for analysis. Recovered plasma from lithium heparin tubes was used, along with a slightly modified commercially available RIA kit (MP Biomedicals, LLC., Solon, OH, USA), to measure plasma cortisol concentration. Following kit instructions for volume of sample (25 μL) yielded results below the normal limit of detection (< 10.0 ng/mL). Therefore, different volumes of plasma sample (25, 50, 100, and 150 μL) were evaluated. Using parallel displacement and recovery (101.59 ± 10%) it was determined that using 50 μL of sample yielded results between minimum and maximum concentration of 5.0 and 500.0 ng/mL, respectively. The intra-assay and inter-assay variations were 2.8 and 11.1%, respectively.

Oxytocin concentration were also determined using a commercially available double-antibody RIA kit (Oxytocin (Human, Rate, Mouse, Bovine) RIA Kit, Phoenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Burlingame, CA, USA) using plasma recovered from EDTA tubes. The inter-assay variation was 19.3% and the intra-assay variation ranged from 3.1 to 9.6%. The minimum and maximum concentrations of detection were 2.5 and 160.0 pg/mL, respectively. The analysis for plasma cortisol and oxytocin were completed using duplicate samples.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using MIXED procedure in SAS 9.4 Software (SAS Institute, 1999). Cow was treated as a random effect; treatment (S or OXT), lactational status (NL or L), time, and their interaction were treated as fixed effects. Day and time of day (AM or PM) were included in the model as fixed effects; however, no effect of either day or time of day was detected and these variables were removed from the model. Repeated measures were assessed using the first-order autoregressive covariance structure. Selection of this covariance structure was based on lowest Bayesian information criterion between first-order autoregressive, compound symmetry, and heterogenous compound symmetry structures. Main effects of treatment, lactational status, and their interaction were assessed by ANOVA. In instances in which an interaction between these contrasts and time were identified (P < 0.05), an ANOVA was performed at each sampling time point. Two lactating cows from the oxytocin treatment (L-OXT) were removed from the study for uncharacteristically uncooperative behavior. Significance was determined at P ≤ 0.05 and trends are reported at 0.05 < P ≤ 0.10. A log transformation was used on oxytocin data due to non-normality; results are presented as back transformed values.

Results

The mean plasma cortisol concentration for all four treatments is displayed in Fig 1. Non-lactating cows had greater (Fig 2; P = 0.02) plasma cortisol concentration (25.3 ng/mL) compared with lactating cows (12.9 ng/mL), however no interaction between lactational status and intra-nasal treatment (P = 0.55) was detected. Neither intra-nasal treatment (P = 0.93), nor time (P = 0.53), affected plasma cortisol concentration.

Fig 1. Mean plasma cortisol concentrations in Bos taurus cows assigned to one of the following treatment.

Fig 1

s. 1) Non-lactating, saline (NL-S, ‒ ‒ Δ ‒ ‒; n = 5), 2) Non-lactating, oxytocin (NL-OXT, ‒ ‒ ○ ‒ ‒; n = 5); 3) Lactating, saline (L-S, ──▲──; n = 5); and 4) Lactating, oxytocin (L-OXT, ──●──; n = 3). Intra-nasal treatments (S or OXT) were administered at 0 minutes and head restraint was applied for two hours (indicated by the black bar). Oxytocin was administered intra-nasally at a rate of 0.60 IU/kg bodyweight. The pooled SEM was 5.6. Only an effect of lactation (P = 0.02) was detected (see Fig 2).

Fig 2. Mean plasma cortisol concentration in Bos taurus cows.

Fig 2

Cows were lactating (L, ──■──; n = 8) or non-lactating (NL, ‒ ‒ □ ‒ ‒; n = 10). Head restraint start time and duration are indicated by the black bar. The pooled SEM was 4.0. An effect of lactation (P = 0.02) was detected, however there was no interaction between lactational status and intra-nasal treatment (P = 0.55).

There was no effect of lactation (P = 0.34) on plasma oxytocin concentration. However, an intra-nasal treatment by time interaction (Fig 3; P < 0.001) was detected such that oxytocin concentration increased with intra-nasal administration of oxytocin. No interactions between lactational status and intra-nasal treatment (P = 0.89) or time (P = 0.39) were detected.

Fig 3. Back transformed mean plasma oxytocin concentration in Bos taurus cows assigned to one of four treatments.

Fig 3

Treatments included 1) Non-lactating, saline (NL-S, ‒ ‒ Δ ‒ ‒; n = 5), 2) Non-lactating, oxytocin (NL-OXT, ‒ ‒ ○ ‒ ‒; n = 5); 3) Lactating, saline (L-S, ──▲──; n = 5); and 4) Lactating, oxytocin (L-OXT, ──●──; n = 3). Intra-nasal treatments (S or OXT) were administered at 0 minutes followed by two hours of head restraint, as indicated by the black bar. Oxytocin was administered intra-nasally at a rate of 0.60 IU/kg bodyweight. A treatment by time interaction was detected from 60 to 90 minutes (P < 0.01) and from 90 to 110 minutes (P < 0.05).

Discussion

The present study confirms that lactating beef cows with access to their calf have a reduced plasma cortisol concentration compared with non-lactating cows without a calf; and this discrepancy between cows in different physiological states is not solely a result of plasma oxytocin concentration. An attenuated response in plasma cortisol concentration has been observed previously in lactating mammals [1, 12, 16, 17], supporting lactation as a stress hypo-responsive condition. Plasma cortisol data resulting from the present study supports previous findings in ruminants [1, 17], while contradicting other reports [18]. For example, Ralph and Tilbrook [1] reported attenuated responses in plasma cortisol in sheep exposed to restraint and isolation stress, while Cook [18] reported no differences in cortisol concentration between lactating and non-lactating ewes exposed to a predator stress. The present study utilized a mild head restraint in a cattle chute, with which the cows were familiar, and therefore no direct comparisons can be made between this and previous studies due to stressor differences and the stressor-dependent nature of the HPA axis response [1, 4]. Furthermore, the results of the present study support earlier published studies that state oxytocin infusion has no detectable effects on plasma cortisol concentration [8, 18].

The hypo-responsive state of the HPA axis observed in lactating mammals is likely facilitated by several hormones working in concert [2]. Oxytocin, prolactin, and the combination of oxytocin and prolactin suppress plasma cortisol concentration [2, 18, 19] and these hormones likely play a direct role in the stress-hypo-responsive state observed during lactation. However, similar plasma oxytocin concentration in both lactating and non-lactating cows in the present study indicates that lactational status alone does not support greater oxytocin concentration. Tactile stimulation of the teat occurring during suckling may be necessary to stimulate oxytocin production and release. To date and in contrast to the present study, previous investigations into the relationship between lactation and oxytocin in ruminants have allowed offspring to suckle throughout sampling [1] which may explain discrepancies between studies. Nevertheless, similar plasma oxytocin concentration and dissimilar cortisol concentration in lactating and non-lactating cows indicate that oxytocin alone cannot be responsible for reduced plasma cortisol in lactating ruminants.

Another plausible explanation for the stress attenuation observed during lactation is that milk within the mammary gland may be acting as a sink for cortisol concentration during times of stress. Verkerk et al. [20] report increases in cortisol concentrations in the composite milk of dairy cows that coincide with a decrease in plasma cortisol concentrations. Equilibrium between plasma and alveolar milk is re-established within one hour of peak plasma cortisol concentrations [20] and an association between average cortisol concentrations in blood and milk has been established [21]. It is possible that alveolar milk may be acting as a sink for cortisol in lactating mammals. To the authors’ knowledge, there are no reports of milk cortisol concentrations in beef cows.

Overall, non-lactating cows had greater plasma circulating cortisol concentration compared with lactating cows with their calf present. Additional hormones present during lactation, such as prolactin, or teat stimulation may be involved in this comparative decrease in plasma cortisol. It is also plausible that alveolar milk may be acting as a sink for cortisol in lactating mammals. Further investigations are needed to elucidate the specific mechanisms impacting the stress state of lactating mammals.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset

(XLSX)

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. This study was funded with discretionary funds allocated by Dr. Anthony Parker, the corresponding author, of The Ohio State University. Salaries support was provided by state and federal funds appropriated to the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University.

References

  • 1.Ralph CR, Tilbrook AJ. The hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis in sheep is attenuated during lactation in response to psychosocial and predator stress. Domest Anim Endocrin. 2016;55:66–73. doi: 10.1016/j.domaniend.2015.11.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Slattery DA, Neumann ID. No stress please! Mechanisms of stress hyporesponsiveness of the maternal brain. J Physiol. 2008;586:377–85. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.2007.145896 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gimpl G, Fahrenholz F. The oxytocin receptor system: structure, function, and regulation. Physiol Rev. 2001;81:629–83. doi: 10.1152/physrev.2001.81.2.629 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Windle RJ, Shanks N, Lightman SL, Ingram CD. Central oxytocin administration reduces stress-induced corticosterone release and anxiety behavior in rats. Endocrinology. 1997;138:2829–34. doi: 10.1210/endo.138.7.5255 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Neumann ID, Wigger A, Torner L, Holsboer F, Landgraf R. Brain oxytocin inhibits basal and stress-induced activity of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis in male and female rates: Partial action within the paraventricular nucleus. J Neuroendocrinol. 2000;12(3):235–43. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2826.2000.00442.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ditzen B, Schaer M, Gabriel B, Bodenmann G, Ehlert U, Heinrichs M. Intranasal oxytocin increases positive communication and reduces cortisol levels during couple conflict. Biol Psychiat. 2009;65(9):728–31. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.10.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rault J, Carter CS, Garner JP, Marchant-Forde JN, Richert BT, Lay DC. Repeated intranasal oxytocin administration in early life dysregulates the HPA axis and alters social behavior. Physiol Behav. 2013;112–113:40–8. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wagner BK, Relling AE, Kieffer JD, Parker AJ. Intranasal oxytocin treatment does not attenuate the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis in beef heifers subjected to isolation stress or restraint and isolation stress. Domest Anim Endocrin. 2020;70:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.domaniend.2019.07.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Carson DS, Yuan H, Labuschagne I. Improving Research Standards to Restore Trust in Intranasal Oxytocin. Biol Psychiat. 2016;79(8):e53–4. Epub 2015/10/06. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.08.031 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lochhead JJ, Throne RG. Intranasal delivery of biologics to the central nervous system. Adv Drug Deliver Rev. 2012;64:614–28. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2011.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Parker KJ, Buckmaster CL, Schatzberg AF, Lyons DM. Intranasal oxytocin administration attenuates the ACTH stress response in monkeys. Psychoneuroendocrino. 2005;30(9):924–9. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2005.04.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Neumann ID, Torner L, Wigger A. Brain oxytocin: differential inhibition of neuroendocrine stress responses and anxiety-related behaviour in virgin, pregnant and lactating rats. Neuroscience. 1999;95:567–75. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4522(99)00433-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Petersson M, Eklund M, Uvnäs-Moberg K. Oxytocin decreases corticosterone and nociception and increases motor activity in OVX rats. Maturitas. 2005;51(4):426–33. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2004.10.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bruckmaier RM, Schams D, Blum JW. Continuously elevated concentrations of oxytocin during milking are necessary for complete milk removal in dairy cows. J Dairy Res. 1994;61:323–34. doi: 10.1017/s0022029900030740 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wagner BK, Relling AE, Kieffer JD, Moraes LE, Parker AJ. Short communication: pharmacokinetics of oxytocin administered intranasally to beef cattle. Domest Anim Endocrin. 2020;71:106387. Epub 2019/12/13. doi: 10.1016/j.domaniend.2019.106387 Epub 2019 Aug 15. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Toufexis DJ, Tesolin S, Huang N, Walker C. Altered pituitary sensitivity to corticotropin-releasing factor and arginine vasopressin participates in the stress hyporesponsiveness of lactation in the rat. J Neuroendocrinol. 1999;11:757–64. Epub 1999/10/16. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2826.1999.00381.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tilbrook AJ, Turner AI, Ibbott MD, Clarke IJ. Activation of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis by isolation and restraint stress during lactation in ewes: Effect of the presence of the lamb and suckling. Endocrinology. 2006;147(7):3501–9. doi: 10.1210/en.2005-1632 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cook CJ. Oxytocin and prolactin suppress cortisol responses to acute stress in both lactating and non-lactating sheep. J Dairy Res. 1997;64(3):327–39. Epub 1997/08/01. doi: 10.1017/s0022029997002240 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Torner L, Neumann ID. The brain prolactin system: involvment in stress response adaptations in lactation. Stress. 2002;5(4):249–57. doi: 10.1080/1025389021000048638 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Verkerk GA, Phipps AM, Carragher JF, Matthews LR, Stelwagen K. Characterization of milk cortisol concentrations as a measure of short-term stress responses in lactating dairy cows. Animal Welfare. 1998;7:77–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bremel RD, Gangwer MI. Effect of Adrenocorticotropin Injection and Stress on Milk Cortisol Content. J Dairy Sci. 1978;61:1103–8. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(78)83693-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Juan J Loor

8 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-30899

Brief communication: Plasma cortisol concentration is affected by lactation, but not intra-nasal oxytocin treatment, in beef cows

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Parker,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 18 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,

Juan J Loor

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. During your revisions, please note that a simple title correction is required: in order to avoid any confusion regarding PLOS ONE article types, we would ask that the title of your manuscript be amended to remove the phrase 'brief communication', i.e.: "Plasma cortisol concentration is affected by lactation, but not intra-nasal oxytocin treatment, in beef cows". Please ensure this is updated in the manuscript file and the online submission 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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Authors should consider modifying Figure 1 so it contains the circulating cortisol profiles for all 4 treatments. No oxytocin treatment by lactation effects occurred but there still is merit in showing all 4 profiles. This information is, after all, what the study was designed to test.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Wagner et al discusses the effects of oxytocin on the cortisol response in lactating and non-lactating cows. Overall, there appears to be information missing from the Materials & Methods Section that make the progression of the experiment difficult to follow. Additionally, I have concerns about the manner in which the experiment was conducted, especially with the endpoint measurement was cortisol. Please see general and specific comments below.

Line 28: 0 minutes relative to what? It is unclear what the starting point was. It is recommended that the timing be changed where time 0 is the time of the oxytocin challenge (i.e., -60, -30, -15, 0, 2, 4, 6, etc)

Line 28: Why were cannulation and treatment/sample collection performed on the same day? Cannulation is stressful and can cause an increase in cortisol.

Line 28: Based on what is described, were cannulations/treatments/sample collection staggered throughout the day? Is there a concern of any diurnal effects on cortisol production?

Line 57: exposed to the stressor for how long?

Line 62: oxytocin administration independent of stressor

Line 77: Time of day is known to affect production and secretion of many hormones, including cortisol. Was time of day taken into consideration in the model?

Line 79: Was calf present only for lactating dams? If so, could this be a confiding factor?

Line 82: Was this 2 hours on average or was blood sampling staggered based on catherization.

Line 84: How as the baseline blood sample collected?

Line 91: Please describe extension sets.

Line 92: Please give more information on chute

Line 94: Please see previous note on changing the timeline (-60, -30, etc).

Line 95: minutes via jugular catheter

Line 95: How were the cows' heads restrained?

Line 100: 12 to 19 mL seems to be a rather large volume to be sprayed up a cow's nose. Was there any drainage after dosing?

Line 102: Blood collected via syringe and then transferred? Please describe.

Line 107: Were samples assayed in duplicate?

Line 108: centrifuged at -4 or 4 degrees C?

Line 109: until required - for what?

Line 122: Day and time of day must be added to the model - if only to prove they had no effect on the model.

Line 132: What is meant by 'fractious' behavior?

Line 138: remove 'either'

Line 161: reduced rather than lesser

Discussion: Overall the discussion is repetitive and could be reduced significantly. Considering the limited data, and combined Results and Discussion section may be more appropriate.

figures - Please add standard error bars to both graphs

Figure 2: is the spike in lactating oxytocin cows accurate? Observed in all three cows or was there an outlier? This deserves discussion.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 30;16(7):e0249323. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249323.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Feb 2021

Dear Editor,

We have amended the manuscript as suggested by the reviewers. We believe that the manuscript is improved by the comments of the reviewers and we thank them for their consideration of our manuscript.

Sincerely

Dr Anthony Parker

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS Response to Reviewers comments Lact.docx

Decision Letter 1

Juan J Loor

16 Mar 2021

Brief communication: Plasma cortisol concentration is affected by lactation, but not intra-nasal oxytocin treatment, in beef cows

PONE-D-20-30899R1

Dear Dr. Parker,

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,

Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Acceptance letter

Juan J Loor

22 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-30899R1

Brief communication: Plasma cortisol concentration is affected by lactation, but not intra-nasal oxytocin treatment, in beef cows.

Dear Dr. Parker:

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. Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES