Talk:Oxytocin

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 6 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tbl.028.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Oxytocin is a hormone
Like for Testosterone, I think the role as a hormone should be explained before explaining the use as a medication. The RedBurn (ϕ) 13:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is both a hormone and a medication. It is on the World Health Organizations list of essential medicine in fact. Both aspects are important. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they're both important, but it really feels jarring to get into medical details like administration protocols and side effects before any discussion of the chemical's role in neurobiology and social neurobiology—the topic of many, many books' worth of research     . If anyone has plans to improve and reorganize this article, I think this aspect is WP:DUE a much larger emphasis. FourViolas (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion to split the article which would solve your concern. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Split done. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW I wouldn't have split this article but whatever. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

This looks like an error
"Oxytocin is normally produced by the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus and released by the posterior pituitary.[5]"

"Produced" and "released" mean about the same thing. It seems more likely that it's produced and released by the pituitary, and some other chemical or signal from the hypothalamus triggers release or production.108.211.84.128 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

"Produced" implies synthesis and "released" implies secretion, and these are very different. Oxytocin is produced (synthesized) by neurons in the hypothalamus, mainly in the supraoptic and paraventricular nuclei. It is released (secreted) from the nerve terminals of these neurons in the posterior pituitary.129.215.83.176 (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The dark side of oxytocin, much more than just a “love hormone”
"There’s a chemical that can subtly shift your childhood memories of your own mother. In some people, it paints mum in a more saintly light, making them remember her as closer and more caring. In others, the chemical has a darker influence, casting mum as a less caring and more distant parent..." - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/11/29/the-dark-side-of-oxytocin-much-more-than-just-a-love-hormone/

For the study, see http://www.pnas.org/content/107/50/21371 Gstree (talk --Gstree (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * media hype over a primary source. wikipedia shrugs.  we wait for reviews, per WP:MEDRS Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The "dark side" of oxytocin is right there in the "ingroup bonding" part of Oxytocin. For example oxytocin probably underpins racism. See also http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262 and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X11002868. Author is Carsten de Dreu. --Penbat (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

See also De Dreu, C.K.W., Greer, L.L., Handgraaf. M.J.J., Shalvi, S., Van Kleef, G.A., Baas, M., Ten Velden, F.S., Van Dijk, E., & Feith, S.W.W. (2010). "The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans." Science, 328, 1408 - 1411.--Penbat (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

infobox
This article still has the Template:Drugbox. What is the correct infobox? We could use:
 * template:infobox gene (used at Brain natriuretic peptide)
 * template:infobox neurotransmitter is used at Norepinephrine
 * template:chembox is used at Triiodothyronine
 * template:infobox protein used at Uroguanylin along with template:chembox

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The easiest thing to do is just remove the clinical data from Infobox drug. The remaining information applies equally to the hormone as the drug and is equivalent to what would be found in Infobox chemical. We don't need to add Infobox protein as there is already a Infobox gene in the Oxytocin section. Infobox neurotransmitter is not appropriate since oxytocin is a hormone, not a neurotransmitter. Boghog (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe "infobox neurotransmitter" is most appropriate, because it contains entries for all the things that are biologically relevant for a neurotransmitter/hormone -- none of the other possibilities do. Looie496 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't have any objections to Infobox neurotransmitter accept for the name. Perhaps we should create redirects from Infobox neurohormone and Infobox neuromodulator to Infobox neurotransmitter to avoid any possible confusion. We should also briefly mention the multiple purposes in the template documentation. We might even considering adding a transmitter / hormone / modulator parameter. Boghog (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I boldly created the above redirects and modified the template documentation to mention the multiple purposes of this template. Boghog (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should rename the template Infobox natural neuroactive substance (NAS) leaving a redirect behind from Infobox neurotransmitter. Boghog (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also just created Natural neuroactive substance (NAS) stub. Boghog (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Side by side comparison
Below is a comparison of what the neurotransmitter and drug box look like for oxytocin. I am wondering if it might not be better to merge the unique parameters of neurotransmitter (i.e., neuropharmacology) as a new section into drugbox. The later has some advantages (collapsable fields for IUPAC name for example). Another advantage is that many of these neurotransmitters are also used as drugs. Depending on whether the infobox is in the drug or neurotransmitter article, we could suppress the display of the neuropharmacology or clinical section respectively. Boghog (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Since none of the parameters in the neuropharmacology section of the neurotransmitter infobox are specific to neurotransmitters (they could equally apply to non-CNS hormones), I am also wondering if we should generalize neuropharmacology section to simply pharmacology. Boghog (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I have made a mockup of what a merged drug/neurotranmitter box would look like in the third column. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I like the one on the far right. I am not sure if we should call it "Pharmacological data" as we are not talking about the drug use in this case but the hormone. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that definition of pharmacology is usually restricted to drugs, but definition sometimes is extended to include hormones. For example, the following is a book devoted to the pharmacology of hormones:
 * I would be open to suggestions for alternatives. Boghog (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is fine with me too. Don't know where the info in the "agonists" and "antagonists" came from.  Some of those are not clinically used drugs and are very unlikely to ever be used that way. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The list came from Oxytocin_receptor. These of course can be trimmed to include only clinically used drugs. However to state the obvious, this article is about the hormone, not the drug, hence there is no absolute requirement that the list be restricted entirely to approved drugs.  Boghog (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IUPHAR maintains a list of agonists/antagonists at the oxytocin receptor. That page could be used to cite some of the entries in the agonists/antagonists parameters.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 23:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * IUPHAR maintains a list of agonists/antagonists at the oxytocin receptor. That page could be used to cite some of the entries in the agonists/antagonists parameters.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 23:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

My 2¢:  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 22:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea to force the width of the drugboxes to 250px. When most of the drugbox parameters are set (i.e., not empty), using a smaller width setting than the default width causes the overall height of the drugbox to increase, despite the increased image size, due to an increased number of line breaks that can be avoided by using the default width (in some cases, templates can fix this too). Also, IMO, drugboxes with a 250px width setting look uglier compared to the default setting.
 * "Pharmacological data" is an apt descriptor for the content contained under that heading. "Pharmacology" is not a field which is confined only to the biochemistry of pharmaceuticals and exogenous compounds. The scope of pharmacology also includes the biochemistry of endogenous biomolecules.
 * I believe width is to adjust the size of the graphic, not necessarily the entire infobox, unless the width is wider than the default infobox. I also think too wide an infobox is a problem. I have simplified the names of the two of the fields and also increased the default width of the infobox to 300px. Now all the labels are on one line. Perhaps the increase of width could be made conditional and only be applied if biosynthetic or metabolism enzymes are specified. Boghog (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's how the width parameter is probably intended to function; however, the effect on the width of the infobox from setting the width of the image to 250px vs 300px (default width) is shown in Special:permalink/754983857 and Special:permalink/755221229, respectively.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 23:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple of things. I did not add 250px to the transcluded infobox comparisons above.  I copied the infobox from the article and this parameter was already set. The default width of the infobox can be set within the infobox code using the bodystyle parameter (e.g., width:270px). The wrapping is a function of both the label width and the length of the fields and are dynamically adjusted in the infobox based on the content.  This dynamic adjustment can be overridden by setting setting the label style parameter to a fixed percentage of the infobox width (e.g., width:33%). Boghog (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Infobox references

Wording
"Plays a role" versus "affects"...

IMO "plays a role" is better as this is a natural substance which is involved in these processes. Not seeing how changing this to "affects" is an improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * f 14.141.137.246 (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Update oxytocins role in feeding
- Propose to update "Biological function" to include "feeding, " HeadDr (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

- Propose to update "Physiological function" to include: "Head et al. (2019) found that oxytocin (OT) does not diminish a feeling of hunger before a start of a meal. Instead OT's anorexigenic properties are manifested once consumption has already begun which is—at least to some extent—driven by changes in brain responsiveness to OT treatment in the hungry vs. fed state. OT should be viewed as a mediator of early satiation rather than as a molecule that diminishes perceived hunger. HeadDr (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Doc James, are you arguing that Frontiers of Medicine does not meet WP:MEDRS threshold? Because there little indication of that from reading that aforementioned article. El_C 00:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks [User:El_C|El_C]. No, i feel Frontiers Journal DOES meet the threshold, and i feel these additions should be made to the wikipedia page, referencing the aforementioned article HeadDr (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Two issues. One is that the source is primary. Second is that Frontiers is not a very good source (are concerns it is predatory). Better to find a better source. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Length of the Sections
After reading this article I noticed that some of the sections are too long and some others are missing some information. The biochemistry section talks about the effects Oxytocin has on females. However, it leaves out information about how oxytocin relates to lactation and milk production in women. The next section that concerned me was the biological function section. The social subsection it contains is too long for the information it contains. Lastly, there is a history section at the end that contains no helpful information that should be deleted. (Mgironta (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC))

subsection 2.2.6. Social
says: "When there is a reason to be distrustful, such as experiencing betrayal, differing reactions are associated with oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) differences. Those with the CT haplotype experience a stronger reaction, in the form of anger, to betrayal." this is unintelligible for the layperson because the expression "ct haplotype" is used only once in the whole article without ever telling what its difference from other types. also theres no mention (and therefore no clue to the meaning of) "ct haplotype" in the "oxytocin receptor" article. therefore it seems to be unnecessarily technical to start talking about a certain haplotype )without ever telling what are the other haplotypes and what their functional difference is) and obscure (because the lack of context). instead please change the article to something like "people/or rats or whatever subjects are used in the experiment related to this/ with the oxytocin receptor type that differs from the receptors of others in .../clarify in what the ct haplotype is different/ react with more anger to betrayal in the experimental situation". 89.134.199.32 (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC).

"TI-001" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TI-001&redirect=no TI-001] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed a paragraph based on a 1993 PhD thesis
I just removed a short paragraph (on 2024-02-22) that seems to be based entirely on a 1993 PhD thesis, which is cited. The paragraph also cites a 1960 review article, but much of the sentence preceding that citation is from the 1993 PhD thesis and not from the 1960 review article. Some parts appear in both, but I think the whole paragraph is based on the 1993 thesis.

The thesis repeatedly refers to oxytocin as an "octapeptide", but also says it is composed of "nine amino acids". I think this is because they are counting peptide bonds, not amino acids, but I'm not sure. Multiple dictionaries define "octapeptide" as containing eight animo acids, and I didn't find any dictionaries with any other definition.

The 1993 PhD thesis doesn't even include any means of measuring the reduced (non-cyclic) form of oxytocin, which it calls "oxytoceine". It also doesn't mention oxytoceine very much. So the thesis never attempts to show that this reduced form is generated during the experiments.

The entire paragraph seems unworthy of Wikipedia, because the reduced (non-cyclic) form of oxytocin certainly exists, in theory and in a lab that wishes to synthesize it, but there is no evidence it exists in vivo. There is extremely little evidence that oxytocin functions as an antioxidant or free radical scavenger in living tissue. This latter question is not investigated in any of the experiments in the 1993 PhD thesis, although the hypothetical possibility is mentioned. 209.6.225.254 (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)