PVN-mPFC OT projections modulates pup-directed pup care or attacking in virgin mandarin voles

Curation statements for this article:
  • Curated by eLife

    eLife logo

    eLife assessment

    This important work provides insights into the neural mechanisms regulating specific parental behaviors. By identifying a key role for oxytocin synthesizing cells in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus and their projections to the medial prefrontal cortex in promoting pup care and inhibiting infanticide, the study advances our understanding of the neurobiological basis of these contrasting behaviors in male and female mandarin voles. The evidence supporting the authors' conclusions is solid but lacks some critical methodological detail. The work should be of interest to researchers studying neuropeptide control of social behaviors in the brain.

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

In many species, adult animals may exhibit caregiving or aggression towards conspecific offspring. The neural mechanisms underlying the infanticide and pup care remain poorly understood. Here, using monogamous virgin mandarin voles ( Microtus mandarinus ) that may exhibit pup care or infanticide, we found that more oxytocin (OT) neurons in the paraventricular nucleus (PVN) were activated during pup caring than infanticide. Optogenetic activation of OT neurons in the PVN facilitated pup-caring in male and female mandarin voles. In infanticide voles, optogenetic activation of PVN OT cells prolonged latency to approach and attack pups, whereas inhibition of these OT neurons facilitated approach and infanticide. In addition, OT release in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) in pup-care voles increased upon approaching and retrieving pups, and decreased in infanticide voles upon attacking pups. Optogenetic activation of PVN OT neuron projections to the mPFC shortened the latency to approach and retrieve pups and facilitated the initiation of pup care, whereas inhibition of these projections had little effect. For pup-care females, neither activation nor inhibition of the terminals affected their behavior towards pups. In infanticide male and female voles, optogenetic activation of PVN-mPFC OT projection terminals prolonged the latency to approach and attack pups and suppressed the initiation of infanticide, whereas inhibition of these projections promoted approach and infanticide. Finally, we found that intraperitoneal injection of OT promoted pup care and inhibited infanticide behavior. It is suggested that the OT system, especially PVN OT neurons projecting to mPFC, modulates pup-directed behaviors and OT can be used to treat abnormal behavioral responses associated with some psychological diseases.

Article activity feed

  1. eLife assessment

    This important work provides insights into the neural mechanisms regulating specific parental behaviors. By identifying a key role for oxytocin synthesizing cells in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus and their projections to the medial prefrontal cortex in promoting pup care and inhibiting infanticide, the study advances our understanding of the neurobiological basis of these contrasting behaviors in male and female mandarin voles. The evidence supporting the authors' conclusions is solid but lacks some critical methodological detail. The work should be of interest to researchers studying neuropeptide control of social behaviors in the brain.

  2. Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

    Summary:

    This important study investigated the role of oxytocin (OT) neurons in the paraventricular nucleus (PVN) and their projections to the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) in regulating pup care and infanticide behaviors in mandarin voles. The researchers used techniques like immunofluorescence, optogenetics, OT sensors, and peripheral OT administration. Activating OT neurons in the PVN reduced the time it took pup-caring male voles to approach and retrieve pups, facilitating pup-care behavior. However, this activation had no effect on females. Interestingly, this same PVN OT neuron activation also reduced the time for both male and female infanticidal voles to approach and attack pups, suggesting PVN OT neuron activity can promote pup care while inhibiting infanticide behavior. Inhibition of these neurons promoted infanticide. Stimulating PVN->mPFC OT projections facilitated pup care in males and in infanticide-prone voles, activation of these terminals prolonged latency to approach and attack. Inhibition of PVN->mPFC OT projections promoted infanticide. Peripheral OT administration increased pup care in males and reduced infanticide in both sexes. However, some results differed in females, suggesting other mechanisms may regulate female pup care.

    Strengths:

    This multi-faceted approach provides converging evidence, strengthens the conclusions drawn from the study, and makes them very convincing. Additionally, the study examines both pup care and infanticide behaviors, offering insights into the mechanisms underlying these contrasting behaviors. The inclusion of both male and female voles allows for the exploration of potential sex differences in the regulation of pup-directed behaviors. The peripheral OT administration experiments also provide valuable information for potential clinical applications and wildlife management strategies.

    Weaknesses:

    While the study presents exciting findings, there are several weaknesses that should be addressed. The sample sizes used in some experiments, such as the Fos study and optogenetic manipulations, appear to be small, which may limit the statistical power and generalizability of the results. Effect sizes are not reported, making it difficult to evaluate the practical significance of the findings. The imaging parameters and analysis details for the Fos study are not clearly described, hindering the interpretation of these results (i.e., was the entire PVN counted?). Also, does the Fos colocalization align with previous studies that look at PVN Fos and maternal/ paternal care? Additionally, the study lacks electrophysiological data to support the optogenetic findings, which could provide insights into the neural mechanisms underlying the observed behaviors.

    The study has several limitations that warrant further discussion. Firstly, the potential effects of manipulating OT neurons on the release of other neurotransmitters (or the influence of other neurochemicals or brain regions) on pup-directed behaviors, especially in females, are not fully explored. Additionally, it is unclear whether back-propagation of action potentials during optogenetic manipulations causes the same behavioral effect as direct stimulation of PVN OT cells. Moreover, the authors do not address whether the observed changes in behavior could be explained by overall increases or decreases in locomotor activity.

    The authors do not specify the percentage of PVN->mPFC neurons labeled that were OT-positive, nor do they directly compare the sexes in their behavioral analysis (or if they did, it is not clear statistically). While the authors propose that the sex difference in pup-directed behaviors is due to females having greater OT expression, they do not provide evidence to support this claim from their labeling data. It is also uncertain whether more OT neurons were manipulated in females compared to males. The study could benefit from a more comprehensive discussion of other factors that could influence the neural circuit under investigation, especially in females.

  3. Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

    Summary:

    This series of experiments studied the involvement of PVN OT neurons and their projection to the mPFC in pup-care and attack behavior in virgin male and female Mandarin voles. Using Fos visualization, optogenetics, fiber photometry, and IP injection of OT the results converge on OT regulating caregiving and attacks on pups. Some sex differences were found in the effects of the manipulations.

    Strengths:

    Major strengths are the modern multi-method approaches and involving both sexes of Mandarin vole in every experiment.

    Weaknesses:

    Weaknesses include the lack of some specific details in the methods that would help readers interpret the results. These include:

    (1) No description of diffusion of centrally injected agents.

    (2) Whether all central targets were consistent across animals included in the data analyses. This includes that is not stated if the medial prelimbic mPFC target was in all optogenetic study animals as shown in Figure 4 and if that is the case, there is no discussion of that subregion's function compared to other mPFC subregions.

    (3) How groups of pup-care and infanticidal animals were created since there was no obvious pre-test mentioned so perhaps there was the testing of a large number of animals until getting enough subjects in each group.

    (4) The apparent use of a 20-minute baseline data collection period for photometry that started right after the animals were stressed from handling and placement in the novel testing chamber.

    (5) A weakness in the results reporting is that it's unclear what statistics are reported (2 x 2 ANOVA main effect of interaction results, t-test results) and that the degrees of freedom expected for the 2 X 2 ANOVAs in some cases don't appear to match the numbers of subjects shown in the graphs; including sample sizes in each group would be helpful because the graph panels are very small and data points overlap.

    The additional context that could help readers of this study is that the authors overlook some important mPFC and pup caregiving and infanticide studies in the introduction which would help put this work in better context in terms of what is known about the mPFC and these behaviors. These previous studies include Febo et al., 2010; Febo 2012; Peirera and Morrell, 2011 and 2020; and a very relevant study by Alsina-Llanes and Olazábal, 2021 on mPFC lesions and infanticide in virgin male and female mice. The introduction states that nothing is known about the mPFC and infanticide. In the introduction and discussion, stating the species and sex of the animals tested in all the previous studies mentioned would be useful. The authors also discuss PVN OT cell stimulation findings seen in other rodents, so the work seems less conceptually novel. Overall, the findings add to the knowledge about OT regulation of pup-directed behavior in male and female rodents, especially the PVN-mPFC OT projection.

  4. Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

    Summary:

    Here Li et al. examine pup-directed behavior in virgin Mandarin voles. Some males and females tend towards infanticide, others tend towards pup care. c-Fos staining showed more oxytocin cells activated in the paraventricular nucleus (PVN) of the hypothalamus in animals expressing pup care behaviors than in infanticidal animals. Optogenetic stimulation of PVN oxytocin neurons (with an oxytocin-specific virus to express the opsin transgene) increased pup-care, or in infanticidal voles increased latency towards approach and attack.

    Suppressing the activity of PVN oxytocin neurons promoted infanticide. The use of a recent oxytocin GRAB sensor (OT1.0) showed changes in medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) signals as measured with photometry in both sexes. Activating mPFC oxytocin projections increased latency to approach and attack in infanticidal females and males (similar to the effects of peripheral oxytocin injections), whereas in pup-caring animals only males showed a decrease in approach. Inhibiting these projections increased infanticidal behaviors in both females and males and had no effect on pup caretaking.

    Strengths:

    Adopting these methods for Mandarin voles is an impressive accomplishment, especially the valuable data provided by the oxytocin GRAB sensor. This is a major achievement and helps promote systems neuroscience in voles.

    Weaknesses:

    The study would be strengthened by an initial figure summarizing the behavioral phenotypes of voles expressing pup care vs infanticide: the percentages and behavioral scores of individual male and female nulliparous animals for the behaviors examined here. Do the authors have data about the housing or life history/experiences of these animals? How bimodal and robust are these behavioral tendencies in the population?

    Optogenetics with the oxytocin promoter virus is a nice advance here. More details about their preparation and methods should be in the main text, and not simply relegated to the methods section. For optogenetic stimulation in Figure 2, how were the stimulation parameters chosen? There is a worry that oxytocin neurons can co-release other factors- are the authors sure that oxytocin is being released by optogenetic stimulation as opposed to other transmitters or peptides, and acting through the oxytocin receptor (as opposed to a vasopressin receptor)?

    Given that they are studying changes in latency to approach/attack, having some controls for motion when oxytocin neurons are activated or suppressed might be nice. Oxytocin is reported to be an anxiolytic and a sedative at high levels.

    The OT1.0 sensor is also amazing, these data are quite remarkable. However, photometry is known to be susceptive to motion artifacts and I didn't see much in the methods about controls or correction for this. It's also surprising to see such dramatic, sudden, and large-scale suppression of oxytocin signaling in the mPFC in the infanticidal animals - does this mean there is a substantial tonic level of oxytocin release in the cortex under baseline conditions?

    Figure 5 is difficult to parse as-is, and relates to an important consideration for this study: how extensive is the oxytocin neuron projection from PVN to mPFC?

    In Figures 6 and 7, the authors use the phrase 'projection terminals'; however, to my knowledge, there have not been terminals (i.e., presynaptic formations opposed to a target postsynaptic site) observed in oxytocin neuron projections into target central regions.

    Projection-based inhibition as in Figure 7 remains a controversial issue, as it is unclear if the opsin activation can be fast enough to reduce the fast axonal/terminal action potential. Do the authors have confirmation that this works, perhaps with the oxytocin GRAB OT sensor?

    As females and males had similar GRAB OT1.0 responses in mPFC, why would the behavioral effects of increasing activity be different between the sexes?