Cited by 242Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 134 of the 139 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 122 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Measuring Oxytocin and Vasopressin: Bioassays, Immunoassays and Random Numbers

Open access
Leng, G., Sabatier, N.·2016·Journal of Neuroendocrinology

Abstract

In this review, we consider the ways in which vasopressin and oxytocin have been measured since their first discovery. Two different ways of measuring oxytocin in widespread use currently give values in human plasma that differ by two orders of magnitude, and the values measured by these two methods in the same samples show no correlation. The notion that we should accept this seems absurd. Either one (or both) methods is not measuring oxytocin, or , by ‘oxytocin’, the scientists that use these different methods mean something very different. If these communities are to talk to each other, it is important to validate one method and invalidate the other, or else to establish exactly what each community understands by ‘oxytocin’. A similar issue concerns vasopressin: again, different ways of measuring vasopressin give values in human plasma that differ by two orders of magnitude, and it appears that the same explanation for discrepant oxytocin measurements applies to discrepant vasopressin measurements. The first assays for oxytocin and vasopressin measured biological activity directly. When immunoassays were introduced, they encountered problems: high molecular weight factors in raw plasma interfered with the binding of antibodies to the hormones, leading to high and erroneous readings. When these interfering factors were removed by extraction of plasma samples, immunoassays gave measurements consistent with bioassays, with measures of turnover and with the sensitivity of target tissues to exogenous hormone. However, many recent papers use an enzyme‐linked immunoassay to measure plasma levels without extracting the samples. Like the first radioimmunassays of unextracted plasma, this generates impossibly high and wholly erroneous measurements.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review argues that widely used unextracted-plasma immunoassays for oxytocin and vasopressin generate impossibly high, erroneous values, while extracted bioassays and radioimmunoassays converge on much lower physiological concentrations. It calls for assay validation and warns that much recent oxytocin/vasopressin literature may be based on measurements no better than random numbers.

Key findings

  • Two current methods for measuring oxytocin in human plasma differ by two orders of magnitude and show no correlation in the same samples; the same discrepancy applies to vasopressin.
  • Many recent studies using unextracted plasma ELISA report oxytocin and vasopressin levels typically of 100–500 pg/ml, whereas bioassays and extracted radioimmunoassays indicate normal circulating levels are <10 pg/ml; normal plasma vasopressin in man is below 2 μU/ml (5 pg/ml), rising several-fold after 24 h dehydration.
  • Comparisons of the same ELISA with and without extraction found no correlation: in seals, extracted samples gave approximately 8 pg/ml versus 300 pg/ml in unextracted heparin samples or 540 pg/ml in EDTA samples; in humans, extracted RIA gave 1.1 pg/ml while unextracted ELISA gave 97 pg/ml, and spiking unextracted samples exaggerated measurements 3.5-fold.
  • The authors attribute the high values to plasma protein interference with antibody binding, producing a high erroneous baseline; they conclude such assays in unextracted plasma are “no more than a random number generator.”

Methods

  • Narrative review of historical and current methods for measuring oxytocin and vasopressin, including bioassays, radioimmunoassays, ELISAs, LC-MS/MS, and copeptin as a vasopressin surrogate.
  • Synthesizes published studies and historical standards, including comparisons of extracted versus unextracted plasma, assay validation studies, clearance and secretion estimates, and target-tissue sensitivity data.
  • Main analysis is qualitative and quantitative plausibility checking rather than a systematic review or meta-analysis; it uses cited values to show that unextracted ELISA results are inconsistent with known production, storage, clearance, and bioactivity.

Limitations

  • The paper states no formal limitations section.
  • Evident from the text: it is a narrative review without a systematic search strategy or meta-analysis, and it presents no new primary experimental data.
  • Evident from the text: its conclusions depend on the cited literature and on calculations from previously published values; the proposed validation recommendations are not prospectively tested here.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jne.12413

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 122 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 38 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 69
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 15
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
74 of 74
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Antibodies are generally raised to the tail end of oxytocin, which confers its biological activity.

    “Generally, antibodies are raised to the tail end of oxytocin, which confers its biological activity.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    When oxytocin or vasopressin are secreted, the entire contents of the vesicle are discharged, including elements of incompletely processed precursor that may not be biologically active.

    “When oxytocin or vasopressin are secreted, the entire contents of the vesicle are discharged, including elements of incompletely processed precursor that may not be biologically active.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are no known conditions in which oxytocin is absent or grossly elevated in man.

    “There are no known conditions in which oxytocin is absent or grossly elevated in man.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Plasma proteins differ from individual to individual and differ substantially from species to species.

    “Plasma proteins differ from individual to individual and differ substantially from species to species”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Oxytocin injected subcutaneously is expected to distribute throughout the extracellular fluid volume.

    “Oxytocin injected s.c. is expected to distribute throughout the extracellular fluid volume”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Daily oxytocin production is inconsistent with the stated infusion rate

    Major

    At the paper's stated potency of 600 IU/mg, 500 ng/min amounts to 0.72 mg/day, or 432 IU/day-not 720 IU/day. The erroneous daily value underlies the subsequent comparison with production in rats.

  • Vasopressin assay sensitivity uses the wrong unit scale

    Minor

    The paper elsewhere equates 4 μU with 10 pg of vasopressin, so 1 pg corresponds to about 0.4 μU-not 0.3 mU (300 μU). The stated sensitivity is therefore hundreds of times larger than its stated equivalent.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 139 references

5 of the 139 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Heller J, 1959, [Significance of a new method of titration of antidiuretic hormone], Cesk Fysiol, 8, 194

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–242 of 242

Metadata

Authors
Leng, G., & Sabatier, N.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Leng, G.
Venue
Journal of Neuroendocrinology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-09-23
Volume
28
Issue
10
ISSN
  • 0953-8194 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2826
OpenAlex
W2498209759
Cited by
237
References
139
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 3
FWCI
4.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroendocrinology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Seventh Framework Programme (607310)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Keywords
oxytocin, vasopressin, plasma hormone measurement, immunoassay interference, bioassay, enzyme-linked immunoassay, radioimmunoassay, plasma extraction, method validation
MeSH terms
Animals, Biological Assay, Humans, Immunoassay, Oxytocin, Vasopressins, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review