Talk:Oxytocin/Archive 1

Caresses and chocolate
I have heard that this substance 1. is produced by the mere caress of the skin 2. that it exists in quantity in chocolate

Could anyone verify or refute this?


 * I have no idea. How about Googling for it, and reporting your findings here? I don't think a "mere caress" is enough - stimulation of the nipple is the main impetus for oxytocin release. I really doubt this mammalian hormone is present in chocolate at all. Breastfeeding mothers would certainly notice this! JFW | T@lk  11:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Does this apply to the male nipple as well? ThVa (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice that Oxycodone has a noteriety section. Would this story be suitable for a similar section, here? This story has been circulated as an internet myth where they claim that they are looking for suspects with tender nipples. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/browse_frm/thread/93aa3dbd06bcb311/3bc3ac07429d89a0

Oops! Thieves take wrong drug - Police say 4 men searching for 'Oxy' stole hormone used to induce labor. By Diane Frederick, Indianapolis Star, August 25, 2001

NOBLESVILLE, Ind. -- Four men on a misguided quest for the heroinlike drug OxyContin instead scored the similar-sounding but pharmaceutically distinct oxytocin, authorities say.


 * Heh. JFW | T@lk  13:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Boston Globe article
linked to an article in the Boston Globe about responses to threatening faces before and after administration of oxytocin. The reference in question is Kirsch P, Esslinger C, Chen Q, Mier D, Lis S, Siddhanti S, Gruppe H, Mattay VS, Gallhofer B, Meyer-Lindenberg A. Oxytocin modulates neural circuitry for social cognition and fear in humans. J Neurosci 2005;25:11489-93. .

I'm not sure if this shouldn't be covered in the article body instead. External links is not really the place to announce new research findings. JFW | T@lk  22:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Function vs Action
I changed the "function" heading in the article because that word implies teleology. I substituted "action" as a word without teleological conotations, but I suspect there are other words which could serve at least as well, and there may be problems with "action" which I did not think of. Osmodiar 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Basic linguistic fact: "purpose" implies teleology, "function" does not. -- 98.108.196.223 (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone removed the nice diagram of Oxytocin and discussion of its amino acid structure. I will try to return it to the way it was. Sammyj

Link
If you were to actually look at the link you would find out that it is a valuable addition to the external link section, being a reprint of an article featured in The Economist along with detailing oxytocins in different animals (such as voles). It isn't biased, and I don't see why it keeps getting reverted. If anyone were to ask me the reason why I keep reverting it back though, I will answer truthfully that I believe it helps wikipedia and am sick that people judge my edits without actually viewing them. Chooserr 06:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Whitehouse.com analogy roughly means that just because this site was lucky in getting oxytocin.org registered, it doesn't mean it is illustrative of this article. The material on the site misrepresents oxytocin research and is quite hopeless as a resource. JFW | T@lk  07:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm glad that I finally can get the reference, but I really don't see how it misrepresents the research. Just looking over it it seems to be factual enough, the front page is a reprint of an article from the Economist. Chooserr 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the site oxytocin.org looks quite suspect. But is the article in The Econmist suspect just because of it's inclusion on oxytocin.org?  True, it may be opinion-based, but it is not unheard of on Wikipedia to have a 'popular references' section for various things.  Why not brain chemicals as well?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.142.175 (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Learning
I modified the following paragraph
 * Learning and memory functions have been claimed to be affected by centally-administered oxytocin, mainly from experiments performed in the 1970's. (Gimpl 2001)

Looking at the cited reference http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/81/2/629#SEC6_6, the studies are mainly from the 80s and 90s, and the qualifier "have been claimed" seems to be designed to discount these studies, which I don't think is justified. AxelBoldt 16:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Learning, discussion
Between the mid 1960's and early 1980's there was considerable interest in work, mainly conducted in Utecht by de Wied and his co-workers, of apparent effects of oxytocin and vasopressin on learning and memory. These were amongst the first reports of central effects of peptides, and coincided with the emerging recognition of central peptidergic systems. However, problems emerged: some other leading laboratories could not repeat the effects in controlled conditions that excluded other effects of the peptides; others recognised that the peptides influence blood pressure and circadian rhythms and other had other motivational effects. While it is now clear that oxytocin and vasopressin have some very important central actions, there are few active researchers who believe that there are specific effects on memory. The cited review by Gimpl contains a single paragraph on learning and memory that ends "However, the wide variety of observed effects has also led to the suggestion that OT has a more general effect on the cortical arousal rather than a specific effect limited to a certain stage of information processing ". Gimple and Fahrenholz are leading experts on oxytocin receptor mechanisms, and the review is naturally focussed on molecular biology of the receptor rather than on the functions of oxytocin. Because of the history of associating oxytocin and vasopressin with learning and memory there are still often mentions of these effects. However if you search for reviews on learning and memory, you will find in them little mention of vasopressin and oxytocin. A qualification is that some more recent work talks of oxytocin having effects on social memory; this is a very different issue to the disputed effects on cognitive performance. As oxytocin certainly affects social interactons and social recognition, whether there is a separable effect on social memory is not clear. Gleng 20:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Has anyone checked the expression of V1a/V1b/V2 and oxytocin receptors in neural tissue, as well as affinity of these hormones for other receptors? The whole thing becomes untenable if no CNS receptors can be identified for either peptide. JFW | T@lk  21:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are no V2 receptors in the CNS, but V1a, V1b and oxytocin receptors are expressed densely in many discrete regions of the brain - in many regions of the limbic system, septum, amygdala, many hypothalamic nuclei, brainstem and spinal cord. The prairie/montane vole work of Tom Insel, Larry Young and Sue Carter (published in several articles in Nature and other leading journals) began after recognising a marked difference in CNS oxytocin receptor distribution between species. The behavoral actions of oxytocin and vasopressin can be blocked by specific antagonists. Some work (especially earlier work) however has used very high doses of oxytocin and vasopressin and these have to be questonable as physiological effects. Do you want references? Gleng 22:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I was just curious. You're obviously into this thing. I would suggest sticking to undisputed findings, and reserving a small section for matters still under investigation. JFW | T@lk  22:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Amino Acid Sequence
anybody else find it confusing that the sequence for vasopressin is listed on this page with the differences underlined? I think it would be significantly less confusing to have the oxytocin sequence listed and to keep the underlining to show its relation to vasopressin. --64.235.212.60 05:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, less than 5 minutes later i changed it. if there's a problem, change it back but i think it's better this way.--64.235.212.60 05:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * More importantly: the sequence for Vasopressin is *wrong* Glu and Asp are different amino acids than Gln and Asn. I have changed them to reflect this difference 84.114.156.225 (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to the systematic name of Oxytocin. The original text read "Its systematic name is cysteine-tyrosine-isoleucine-glutamine-asparagine-cysteine-proline-leucine-glycine-amine (cys – tyr – ile – gln – asn – cys – pro – leu – gly – NH2, or CYIQNCPLG-NH2." This is not correct.  The systematic name is ...-glycine-amide.  The systematic name in the summary box on the right hand side of the page is correct, but the main text was not correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHWoodman (talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Oxytocin for Sale as a 'trust drug'
I've seen a few websites selling oxytocin as if you could use it to make people trust you or potential mates to feel attracted to you (by using it yourself and giving it to others). Is there any basis to the claim? Could you give someone oxytocin (hypothetically) and it would work to make them trust you?

--Two studies have been done in which oxytocin was sprayed into the nostrils. I would imagine that the oxytocin you see advertised is either degraded or wasn't present in the first place. If you could get some authentic oxytocin and prepared it properly, and were able to spray it into someones nose, there might be a slight increase in trust. For how long and how strong is not known.

Probably a scam. oxytocin doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier; the intranasal route depends upon the belief that it's possible to bypass the barrier this way, but very large amounts are needed. Gleng 22:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there some reason FOX news is heralding Oxytocin as the best thing since SSRI's? According to FOX and a spate of segments they've been showing, several resident medical "specialists" are defending claims that it's a panacea for virtually every known social phobia or anxiety. They also seem to be claiming knowledge of research showing intravenous doses readily cross the BBB where "a single dose works for weeks". # Bare URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371023,00.html B.Soto (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Estrogen/Testosterone interaction
I've read that estrogen is required for any 'bonding effect' to occur and that the presence of testosterone mutes the effect. See for example:

"Meanwhile, elevated testosterone can suppress oxytocin and vasopressin. There is good evidence, Dr Fisher said, that men with higher testosterone levels tend to marry less often, be more abusive in their marriage, and divorce more regularly" from http://www.mcmanweb.com/love_lust.htm

...and...

"What does this have to do with oxytocin and bonding? Estrogen enhances the effects of oxytocin while testosterone mutes them. The battle of the sexes is triggered by hormones -- men and women do love differently." http://www.hugthemonkey.com/2006/09/you_say_estroge.html

Sorry, don't have any links to peer-reviewed research for this yet but that's probably only because I've not dug very deep so far.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.28.147.243 (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Bush appointee and oxytocin
http://www.alternet.org/rights/44411/ AlterNet link

http://feministing.com/archives/006076.html Feministing blog link

http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116373868117148083 Hullabaloo blog link

Who is this lunatic Dr. Eric Keroack and why is he telling us oxytocin is the chemical that makes "good" relationships work, and that sex decreases the levels of oxytocin, thereby making sex detrimental to said relationships? And why the hell is he now the Bush administration appointee to oversee Title X funding, which handles federal funding of family planning and reproductive health? This is madness on an epic scale -- not to mention intellectually insulting, just check out the PowerPoint slides -- and is worth discussion for inclusion in this site. You can bet that a lot of confused people hearing Dr. Keroack's insane yammering about oxytocin will be checking this article to find out more about it. Black Max

In reference

"Paquin J et al.(2002) Oxytocin induces differentiation of P19 embryonic stem cells to cardiomyocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:9550-5 " correct with that: "Paquin J, Danalache BA et al.(2002) Oxytocin induces differentiation of P19 embryonic stem cells to cardiomyocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:9550-5 "

because in PNAS article is mentioned †J.P. and B.A.D. contributed equally to this work.

References for BBB non-crossing/projecting neurons?
Oxytocin secreted from the pituitary gland cannot re-enter the brain because of the blood-brain barrier Instead, the behavioral effects of oxytocin are thought to reflect release from centrally projecting oxytocin neurons, different from those that project to the pituitary gland

Does anyone have a reference for these 'thoughts' (have they been actually proven in vitro?) I do have the article  "The oxytocin receptor system: structure, function, and regulation." (Gimpl G, Fahrenholz F. Physiol Rev. 2001 Apr;81(2):629-83.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11274341), if it might be there.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.143.32 (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Orgasm While Nursing
When my wife was nursing our children, she occasionally had orgasms while doing so. Other women in the support group she attended reported similar experiences. Has this been explored in the literature? Virgil H. Soule (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)zbvhs

Fenugreek lacks reference
There needs to be a reference for the fenugreek claim. ThVa (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt a peer-reviewed citation showing an effect of this herbal "medicine" exists. If one is found, we could revisit. AlbertHall (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Oxycontin
I've actually see people get confused over this, even to the point of theft. See http://www.newsoftheweird.com/weirdplanet/wp010827.html, and search for oxytocin. And there is a not to be confused with Oxytocin on the Oxycontin page.Naraht (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I admit there there maybe a very few numbskulls that may be confused, that might even go to the oxycontin page and see oxytocin listed and come away thinking it is a synonym. I just don't believe we need to clutter this entry with nearly useless info. As I said, then why not oxygen, for example. There must be someone confused by that as well. AlbertHall (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I take oxytocin nasally as a treatment for Asperger's Syndrome (and yes, it has a very substantial impact, IMHO), and easily 1/3 of all people I mention oxytocin to think it's related to oxycontin. Munkeegutz (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope they are just kidding you...P.S. just curious, but is the intranasal oxytocin obtained via a doctor's prescription from a legitimate pharmacy? Or online somewhere? AlbertHall (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * it seems like nearly this entire wiki entry was written by authors who were on oxycontin, as oxytocin (or pitocin) is what they give to women to induce labor. I have never gone into labor bore children myself as I am a male, but I have witnessed childbirth and the contractions didn't look fun to me, but I can only imagine what pitocin would do if a male took the drug, but I bet it wouldn't be pleasant. In fact it might even be painful as having your insides feel like they were trying to jump out you doesn't sound like fun to me. Dirtclustit (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent(?) study by Angeliki Theodoridou on the effects of oxytocin on truthfullness and attractiveness of strangers
I haven't find the paper if there is any, but here's relatively good source. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16932-love-hormone-boosts-strangers-sex-appeal.html

May I suggest that this study is mentioned in the article? --Deleet (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New review by Lee et al.
This looks like it'd be a good source for Oxytocin. Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for significant CNS entry of oxytocin by nasal spray.
I don't know what idiot put this here, but it is completely false. For evidence try the incredible amount of studies showing psychological changes resulting from nasal administration of OT. Or if you can get access to this article, it just about proves it...

Born, J., Lange, T., Kern, W., McGregor, G., Bickel, U., & Fehm, H. (2002, June). Sniffing neuropeptides: a transnasal approach to the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 5(6), 514. Retrieved August 3, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

I'm pretty sure that I've come across similar studies that used oxytocin nasal spray as opposed to vasopressin nasal spray. In any case, ask any biochemist or neuroscientists if they think that the fact that vasopressin can propagate along the olfactory nerves that OT will as well.


 * The Born et al. paper is a nice one. However, the fact remains that although studies report effects of intranasal ocytocin, they are not proof that the effects are due to CNS access of the sprayed oxytocin. This might seems like a trivial point, but proof is still lacking.AlbertHall (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If I had a study 'proving' it I would have noted that it has been proven. But there is evidence, which I provided. The OT wiki page explicitly says there is no evidence, when that is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.217.36 (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, consider this situation: a large dose of insulin is given and the person goes unconscious. I believe your logic would then lead you to conclude that insulin goes to the brain to cause this effect. In fact, the insulin acts at the liver (among other places) to reduce serum glucose which then leads to unconsciousness. The effects of oxytocin on human behavior may indeed be due to direct travel into the appropriate brain sites, but it may be that oxytocin acts peripherally (vagus nerve?) to cause the behaviors (if they turn out, in fact, to be replicable). AlbertHall (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why don't injection, or any other form of administration, have the same effects as the nasal spray? Though, of course you are right; it could be a secondary chemical or neural actor that cause the psychological effects, but just a little bit of common speculation will tell you that OT nasal sprays penetrate into the CNS. In any case, the only way to find this out is to do some experimentation, and for some reason no one has done it.


 * In actuality, there are iv administration studies claiming effects on social behaviors, especially with autism. AlbertHall (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, why hasn't anyone tried to experiment with OT nasal sprays the way Born et al. did with the other neuropeptides? It makes me wish I had a phd... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.217.36 (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to avoid any confusion, the paper by Born et al:
 * examines melanocortin, vasopressin, and insulin but not OT. OT is mentioned in the caption to Figure 1 of the above paper, but only to point out that their analytical method for detecting the other peptides does not cross react with OT. Boghog (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * examines melanocortin, vasopressin, and insulin but not OT. OT is mentioned in the caption to Figure 1 of the above paper, but only to point out that their analytical method for detecting the other peptides does not cross react with OT. Boghog (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Autism
I just read this. I don't know what to do with the info: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=oxytocin-may-alleviate-some-autism-10-02-16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.127.171 (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another article referencing same Autism results, says it was administered as an inhalent: http://www.dbtechno.com/health/2010/02/16/oxytocin-hormone-may-benefit-adults-with-autism/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.127.171 (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is the link to the article in PNAS:




 * Boghog (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This report of the beneficial effect of oxytocin on autism has now has been added to the article. Boghog (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Understandability of article
I can't understand section 1 and subsection 1.1 of this article because I don't have the necessary scientific background. I find the other sections understandable and interesting. I would like to put sections 1 and 1.1 at the end. I think it would be wonderful if someone would rewrite those sections so the general public could understand them. Any thoughts on this? DBlomgren (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I also found the "synthesis, storage and release" section difficult to digest.  Per your suggestion, I have moved both sections toward the end of the article.  In addition, I have inserted an introductory sentence at the beginning of the section which hopefully makes it a little easier to understand.  Cheers.  Boghog (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you agreed. Thank you for being bold. DBlomgren (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Mice
I came across some interesting citations on oxytocin in mice and the lack of it affecting so-called "social amnesia". Maybe it's already covered here, but I thought I'd mention it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How would nasal spray work? What would be the route?
The article states that more than one study has shown that OT administered via nasal spray has generated measurable effects. It also states that there is no evidence of direct propagation of the spray to the nerves in the nose and thence to the brain via the CNS. Finally, it fails to state that the route to the brain could include the blood vessels in the nose. If I've understood all this, it leaves me wondering how the nasal spray could possibly create any changes in the brain. Either the studies are wrong, or there is some route from the nose to the brain. This conclusion indicates a glaring omission in the content of this article. We need input from someone qualified in the field of medical routes for drug administration. David Spector 22:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea is that it sneaks through intercellular clefts in the epithelium and reaches the subarachnoid space, from where it diffuses across the ventricular system. This is not demonstrated but based on the vasopressin experiment by Born. This is a plausible but strictly taken unproven route. --tijmz (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Intranasal application of oxytocin (as with other drugs) is an effective way of getting it into the bloodstream (inhaled drugs get ready access into the blood via the lungs). Accordingly, intranasal oxytocin has long been used to augment delivery in childbirth, via its effects on the uterus. Because oxytocin receptors are very widely distributed in the periphery (including at the heart, reproductive tract and GI tract) and oxytocin at modestly high doses also acts at vasopressin receptors (on blood vessels and kidney) it is possible that oxytocin administered intranasally at the enormous doses used in these studies has indirect effects on the brain that result from these peripheral actions. For example, intranasal oxytocin given to dogs produces a marked increase in insulin and glucagon secretion and in plasma glucose. These are likely to have consequences for brain function. Altszuler N, Hampshire J. Intranasal instillation of oxytocin increases insulin and glucagon secretion. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1981 Oct;168(1):123-4.Gleng (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction in Article regarding nasal spray
The article cites several autism studies in which nasal spray is employed to increase brain OT levels. Yet under the heading of "drug forms" we read,

"There is no evidence for significant central nervous system entry of oxytocin by nasal spray. Oxytocin nasal sprays have been used to stimulate breastfeeding but the efficacy of this approach is doubtful.[56]"

Apparently, the evidence is ambiguous. I wonder how many studies have actually examined passage from nasal tissues to central nervous system. Perhaps none. Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence. I think it's generally agreed that nasal spray increases OT in the brain only by a modest amount, perhaps not enough to stimulate breast feeding. In any case, release of breast milk might be a peripheral effect of OT, which can be induced by intravenous injection, like uterine contractions. Emotional changes are more likely to be promoted by brain OT. 69.226.110.66 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See the section Autism here on the talk page: The abstracts mention "inhaling", so, unless this is a bad translation, it would seem nasal route to the brain is not relevant. DS Belgium (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Studies with rats have shown that Oxytocin causes them to lose interest in alcohol and methamphetamines. Clinical trials are currently being conducted in Australia to see if Oxytocin can also break addiction in humans. The studies are only using nasal sprays so they must be effective. An expert should be able to access the relevant studies to find exactly why they are using nasal sprays. Wayne (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * At this time, there is absolutely no evidence that the oxytocin administered peripherally via intranasal or other routes gets into the CNS in significant quantities. However, even it is doesn't get in from the periphery, there is still the possibility that peripheral administration somehow triggers CNS release. AlbertHall (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Need to reconcile with Wikipedia Article on MDMA (Ecstasy)
The Wikipedia article on MDMA states at several points that MDMA's pleasant effects may be caused by large releases of oxytocin in the brain. This might be mentioned briefly in this article, or the reader could be referred to the MDMA article. 69.226.110.66 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of drug in India
User:Boghog2 recently removed a section with an outrageous and scarcely believable story about an underground network in India that illegally acquires prepubescent girls and puts them into alternate families which raise them until puberty at which time they force them into sex slavery. These new families inject the girls with oxytocin to hasten the onset of puberty. The idea to inject humans for this is related to its use as a chemical to force milk out of cows, or so the story goes.

Boghog said the sources were doubtful and the story is peripheral to the article's subject. This is an India Today story, and I would say that this magazine is representative of the standard that popular English media in India achieve and as such meets WP:RS. The link gives an article and a further link to a half-hour video documentary on this topic, so this is not a small story to them.

As to this being not being relevant enough to the article's subject, I am not sure. I understand that many prescription drugs which can be abused in some recreational way have misuse sections in their articles, but then there are statistics about how widespread that is and I am not sure of the prevalence of the slavery thing other than it is enough for a reliable source to cover. The story seems intimately related to oxytocin to me. Does anyone feel otherwise? If so, could you state why?

Also, does anyone have any more sources documenting this?  Blue Rasberry  00:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I was a little too quick on the draw.  The whole thing sounded so outlandish that I deleted on it the spot without adequately checking the source.  However I would agree that adding more sources would be desirable given the unbelievable nature of the story.  Boghog (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a standard case of true "event facts", but mistaken conclusions served alongside them as "background facts", as is so common in the journalist community. The fact of oxytocin administration to abductees in an environment where said oxytocin is cheap and readily available sounds plausible enough, but the motivation stated (hastening puberty) sounds less so. Might I direct our dear journalists towards the part of this article that mentions oxytocin's fear-killing, trust-increasing, and bond-building effects? Now *those* sound useful for when you're trying to deal with someone you just abducted. As to puberty, for *sex slavery*? - a) anywhere from not really necessary to downright undesirable, depending on the socio-cultural context, b) if you're abducting people, it sounds a _lot_ easier to just select victims that meet your criteria (if such exist), and just kidnap girls the right age. Stupid journalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.50.202 (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is at least some evidence that OT can be passed to the brain via nasal spray, though probably only in small amounts. I've tried OT nasal spray myself. The subjective effect is rather mild and subtle. As far as I know, intravenous OT does not pass the blood brain barrier at all. That's already mentioned in various passages in this article. 69.226.110.66 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Abuse would have to be in an environment where normal stimuli to oxytocin were absent, interactions with friends, family, employment, neighbours and access to sources of entertainment. Orchaestrating this would be difficult in modern societies and therefore abuse would be limited, easily detected and far from an existential threat to civilisation or a useful tool to its enemies. Perhaps this could be noted in the article.

31.69.71.206 (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If we had a reliable source for that, we could. Sounds like original research to me, though. After all, dopamine is normally found in the brain, so your theory would posit that a dopamine reuptake inhibitor wouldn't be addictive. However they are. - 14:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Are there ways to increase it through diet?
I'm just wondering if there are ways to increase oxytocin naturally through diet? What are the building blocks, would a deficiency be due to not getting enough of something eg protein or certain fats like omega 3s? Or could something else in the diet be blocking production (trans fats maybe)? I've heard some people with Asperger's disorder swear by going off dairy and wheat, so could they be blocking the release of oxytocin somehow? What other natural ways are there to increase oxytocin's release? I've heard sex, skin-to-skin contact, caressing, nurturing by other people, what other ways are there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.34.78 (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Chocolate. -- AstroU (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hormones of the heart
Is the connection sufficient to add oxytocin to Category:Hormones of the heart? __meco (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At present, that category is undefined. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OT in males
The article does not specifically mention that males have it, just what happens when males are given it. From oxytocin.org: "OT is recognized as having endocrine and paracrine roles in male reproduction"--John Bessa (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed sentence about Oxytocin and the production of dairy milk
I removed the follow material about Oxytocin and the production of dairy milk:


 * ===Industrial use===
 * Oxytocin can be administered to bovine animals in order to increase the production of dairy milk.
 * Oxytocin can be administered to bovine animals in order to increase the production of dairy milk.

It was commented out anyway… Tony Mach (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Will someone rewrite the article for a general audience?
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a medical encyclopedia.208.68.128.90 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

4th sentence needs drastic rewrite
"Both childbirth and milk ejection result from positive feedback mechanisms." What does that even mean? Does a positive feedback loop get you pregmnant? or does it induce labour? a sentence should be understandable and make sense on its own. I sugest someone remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.108.164.247 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)