Challenges for measuring oxytocin: The blind men and the elephant?

Evan L. MacLean, Steven Ray Wilson, W. Lance Martin, John M. Davis, Hossein P. Nazarloo, C. Sue Carter

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

57 Scopus citations


Since its discovery more than a century ago, oxytocin has become one of the most intensively studied molecules in behavioral biology. In the last five years, Psychoneuroendocrinology has published more than 500 articles with oxytocin in the title, with many of these articles including measures of endogenous oxytocin concentrations. Despite longstanding interest, methods of measuring endogenous oxytocin are still in active development. The widely varying oxytocin concentrations detected by different approaches to measurement – and lack of correlation among these techniques – has led to controversy and confusion. We identify features of oxytocin that may help to explain why various approaches may be differentially sensitive to diverse conformational states of the oxytocin molecule. We propose that discrepancies in data generated by different methods of measurement are not necessarily an indicator that some methods are valid whereas others are not. Rather, we propose that current challenges in the measurement of oxytocin may be analogous to the parable of the blind men and the elephant, with different methods of sample preparation and measurement being sensitive to different states in which the oxytocin molecule can exist.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)225-231
Number of pages7
StatePublished - Sep 2019
Externally publishedYes


  • HPLC
  • Immunoassay
  • Mass spectrometry
  • Measurement
  • Oxytocin
  • Sample preparation
  • Vasopressin

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism
  • Endocrinology
  • Endocrine and Autonomic Systems
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Biological Psychiatry


Dive into the research topics of 'Challenges for measuring oxytocin: The blind men and the elephant?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this