Dandisets / 000114

Dandiset 000114

✓ Verified by an independent agent

Oxytocin neurons enable social transmission of maternal behaviour

electrophysiological House mouse Converted by CatalystNeuro 387 GB 30 files
  • 3 partially reproduced
  • 3 not reproduced
  • 12 blocked

Counted separately: 1 check that the dandiset is the data behind the paper.

  • 1 reproduced

View on DANDI Paper JSON How to read outcomes

Claims

From the paper Oxytocin neurons enable social transmission of maternal behaviour

Reproducing Carcea et al. (2021) from dandiset 000114 7

Notebook reproduce_carcea_2021.ipynb

  • Not reproducedFig. 2e; Extended Data Fig. 7a (left); Source Data Fig. 2enames its codes from outside the dandiset

    A significant fraction of virgin PVN units were activated during shepherding by the dam (5 of 21 OT-PVN and 9 of 97 PVN units; p = 0.02 and 0.001).

    during shepherding (left; 5/21 OT-PVN neurons, Fisher's exact test, p=0.02; 9/97 PVN neurons, p=0.001)

    Fig. 2e; Extended Data Fig. 7a (left); Source Data Fig. 2e

    What the paper reports

    • OT-PVN units: one-sided Fisher's exact test, p = 0.02 (n = 21 OT-PVN units)
    • PVN units: one-sided Fisher's exact test, p = 0.001 (n = 97 PVN units)

    With the Methods' 10 s baseline, 3 of 194 units (1.5%) are activated during shepherding, Fisher p = 0.12, against 11.9% (pooled) or 9.3% (PVN only); 10 units are suppressed and 15 have no value. With the code's equal-duration baseline, 9 of 194 (4.6%, p = 0.0018). V116 alone, 2 of 70 (p = 0.25). Sessions hold 1 to 22 shepherding episodes, so most units are tested on few events. Poisson units with no response give 3 of 194 activated, as many as the real units. Counting empty episodes as 0 gives 1 of 194, counting V111 once 2 or 3 of 132, and leaving out V116 03102018 2 of 168, none with p < 0.05.

    How the test differed from the paper’s method

    • Units from 4 virgins and 7 sessions, OT-PVN and PVN pooled, as for nest entry.
    • Real episodes without spikes are left out as in the code, and V111's sessions counted separately, as for nest entry; both are also shown the other way.
    • The Methods' 10 s baseline is used; the code's equal-duration baseline is shown as a variant.
  • Not reproducedFig. 2j; Extended Data Fig. 7a; Source Data Fig. 2jnames its codes from outside the dandiset

    PVN units fired more when the virgin entered the nest after being shepherded than when she entered it voluntarily (18 units, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test, p = 0.0056).

    Spiking rate when virgin entered nest after shepherding (red) or voluntarily (grey) ... shepherding vs voluntary entry, p=0.005, Wilcoxon signed-rank test

    Fig. 2j; Extended Data Fig. 7a; Source Data Fig. 2j

    What the paper reports

    • Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p = 0.005

    Over 128 units in 5 sessions, the change is higher for shepherded than voluntary entries in 70, median difference 3.9, Wilcoxon p = 0.182. Sessions disagree; V110 03032018 (one shepherded entry) has 30 of 31 units higher (p = 4.66e-09) and V116 03102018 has 6 of 26 (p = 0.00669). With windows of 5 and 30 s, p = 0.37 and 0.166; over the 36 units activated during nest entry, median difference -7.3, p = 0.148; V116 alone, -6.0, p = 0.0732. Without V116 03102018, whose clock is not known, the median difference is 10.8 over 102 units and p = 0.0237; this variant does not decide the outcome under the criterion, and 31 of its units come from V110 03032018, compared on a single shepherded entry.

    How the test differed from the paper’s method

    • The paper does not say how a nest entry was classed as shepherded or which 18 units were used; the rule (entry starting from the start of a shepherding episode to 10 s after its end) and the unit set were fixed before the analysis.
  • Not reproducedResults, Social transmission of maternal behaviour, paragraph 1; Extended Data Fig. 8anames its codes from outside the dandiset

    About once every two hours, dams dropped and then retrieved pups during co-housing (daily means 0.34 to 0.60 retrievals per hour, N = 14 dams).

    About once every two hours, dams dropped and then retrieved pups, sometimes bringing pups to the virgin

    Results, Social transmission of maternal behaviour, paragraph 1; Extended Data Fig. 8a

    Dams retrieve 23 times in 108.4 h, 0.21 per hour (session mean 0.21, range 0 to 0.70), below 0.31 to 0.66 and close to the 0.2 +/- 0.1 per hour (N = 5) the legend of Extended Data Fig. 8a gives for singly housed dams. Two of 10 sessions are inside the range (V116 03082018 at 0.33, V118 03222018 at 0.40). The rate depends on every retrieval being annotated, which the dandiset does not state; the annotations span each session with no gap over 0.81 h, and dam retrievals are too rare (gaps of up to 9.89 h) for their spacing to show unscored stretches.

    How the test differed from the paper’s method

    • Rates from 5 cages over 10 sessions, against the paper's 14 dams over 4 days.
  • Partially reproducedFig. 2i; Extended Data Fig. 7a (middle); Source Data Fig. 2inames its codes from outside the dandiset

    A significant fraction of virgin PVN units were activated during nest entry (6 of 21 OT-PVN and 33 of 126 PVN units; one-sided Fisher's exact test p = 0.01 and 0.0001).

    nest entry (middle; 6/21 OT-PVN neurons, p=0.01; 33/126 PVN neurons, p=0.0001

    Fig. 2i; Extended Data Fig. 7a (middle); Source Data Fig. 2i

    What the paper reports

    • OT-PVN units: one-sided Fisher's exact test, p = 0.01 (n = 21 OT-PVN units)
    • PVN units: one-sided Fisher's exact test, p = 10⁻⁴ (n = 126 PVN units)

    42 of 194 units (21.6%) are activated during nest entry, outside the tolerance of both readings (pooled 23.9 to 29.2%, PVN only 23.6 to 28.8%); the Fisher test against zero gives p = 1.9e-14, and 7 units are suppressed. By mouse, V116 has 37 of 70 (52.9%), V110 1 of 31 and V111 4 of 93. Without the 40 s cap, as in the code, 2 of 194 (1.0%, p = 0.25). Without the 20 units above 1,048,500 spikes, 42 of 174 (24.1%), inside the tolerance of both readings, so this variant would reproduce the fraction. With q = 0.01 and 0.1, 14.4% and 28.4%. The paper's statement separates OT-PVN (6 of 21) and PVN (33 of 126) units; the OT-PVN part cannot be tested. The clock shared by spikes and annotations could not be established in any session. Poisson units with each unit's spike count and no response give 2 of 194 (1.0%) on the same episodes and test. Real episodes without spikes are left out of the mean in 116 units (median 17% of their episodes); counting them as 0, as the shuffles do, gives 31 of 194 (16.0%, p = 1.3e-10). Counting V111 once gives 38 to 40 of 132 (28.8 to 30.3%; 28.8% is inside the pooled reading's tolerance, so this variant would reproduce the fraction); without V116 03102018, whose clock is not known, 25 of 168 (14.9%, p = 1.1e-08). The baselines of 3 to 20 entries per session overlap an earlier nest dwell or a shepherding episode; the largest count is in V110 03032018 (20 of 72, all an earlier dwell) and the largest share in V116 03092018 (16 of 29, all shepherding).

    How the test differed from the paper’s method

    • Units from 4 virgins and 7 sessions (194 units), against the paper's 147 units from more animals; which sessions the paper used is not stated.
    • OT-PVN and PVN units are pooled and the false discovery rate is applied over each session's units, as OT identity is not in the dandiset; the Methods apply it over OT-PVN or PVN units of a day.
    • The baseline ends 0.5 s before the episode, from the code; the Methods do not give it.
    • V111's three sessions probably hold the same clusters (spike counts correlated 0.93 to 0.97) and are counted as separate units, as the paper counts units per day.
    • As in the code, real episodes with no spike in either window are left out of a unit's mean, while shuffled ones count as 0; counting both as 0 is shown as a variant, as is counting V111 once.
  • Partially reproducedFig. 3b, c; Extended Data Fig. 7a (right); Source Data Fig. 3cnames its codes from outside the dandiset

    Spontaneous pup retrieval by the dam, in which the virgin was not involved, activated a significant fraction of virgin PVN units (5 of 17 OT-PVN and 10 of 69 PVN units; p = 0.02 and 0.0007).

    Remarkably, retrieval by dams evoked responses in virgin PVN (Fig. 3b, c), although the virgin was not directly involved ... dam retrieval (right; 5/17 OT-PVN neurons, p=0.02; 10/69 PVN neurons, p=0.0007)

    Fig. 3b, c; Extended Data Fig. 7a (right); Source Data Fig. 3c

    What the paper reports

    • OT-PVN units: one-sided Fisher's exact test, p = 0.02 (n = 17 OT-PVN units)
    • PVN units: one-sided Fisher's exact test, p = 7 × 10⁻⁴ (n = 69 PVN units)

    13 of 132 units (9.8%) are activated during dam retrieval, Fisher p = 9e-05, outside the tolerance of both readings (pooled 15.7 to 19.1%, PVN only 13.1 to 16.0%). 9 of the 13 are from V111 03032018, which has one retrieval episode; over sessions with at least 2 episodes, 4 of 101 (p = 0.061). More units are suppressed (20) than activated, and the median change is -22.4. With the code's baseline, 16 of 132 (12.1%). The OT-PVN part (5 of 17) cannot be tested. The 9 units of V111 03032018 share a median 71% of their spikes pairwise within 0.1 ms (33 to 81%), against 1.7% among the session's other 22 units, so they are probably far fewer than 9 neurons. Counting V111 once gives 11 of 101 with V111 03032018 (p = 0.00037) and 4 of 101 with V111 03062018 (p = 0.061). Poisson units with no response give 3 activated and 12 suppressed of 132, so the suppressed count is not far above the test's false-positive level. Counting empty episodes as 0 gives 12 of 132 (p = 0.00019); without V116 03102018, 12 of 106 (p = 0.00018). The baseline of the single retrieval in V111 03032018 is not a recording gap (537 population spikes, more than in 43% of the session's 10 s windows; no interval over 0.22 s within 60 s), but 7 of 31 units have no spike in it and the 9 activated units fire 0 to 2.1 Hz. During the 5.2 s episode about 16 units fire at 144 to 221 Hz together (14,346 population spikes in the first 5 s against 1,838 per 5 s over the session, a size reached in 12 of 3,325 windows), so the retrieval falls on one of the session's largest synchronous bursts. The outputs cannot tell a response from a burst that coincides with the episode; the outcome follows the criterion, which counts units as given.

    How the test differed from the paper’s method

    • Units from 2 virgins and 5 sessions with 1 to 11 retrieval episodes each; OT-PVN and PVN pooled.
    • Real episodes without spikes are left out as in the code, and V111's sessions counted separately, as for nest entry; both are also shown the other way.
    • The Methods' 10 s baseline is used; the code's equal-duration baseline is shown as a variant.
  • Partially reproducedFig. 1j; Extended Data Fig. 3bnames its codes from outside the dandiset

    Dams shepherded virgins more often than the 0.2 events per hour at which dams chased virgins without pups, at 3.5 +/- 0.9 events per hour with pups present.

    summary of shepherding events per hour when pups were removed vs when pups were present (‘No pups’: 0.2±0.1 events/hour; ‘Pups’: 3.5±0.9 events/hour, N=4, p=0.03, Student’s two-tailed paired t-test)

    Fig. 1j; Extended Data Fig. 3b

    What the paper reports

    • Student's two-tailed paired t-test, p = 0.03 (n = N = 4)

    Over 10 sessions from 5 mice the mean rate is 0.65 shepherding events per hour (s.e.m. 0.17), above 0.2 (t = 2.59, two-sided p = 0.0292), and far below 3.5 +/- 0.9. Averaged per mouse first, 0.63 per hour, p = 0.193 against 0.2. Session rates run from 0 (V118 03222018) to 1.58 (V85). Annotations of any label span each session with no gap over 0.81 h; the virgin labels run from within 0.61 h of the start to within 0.15 h of the end with gaps of up to 1.93 h. This is consistent with sessions scored in full but does not show that every shepherding episode was annotated.

    How the test differed from the paper’s method

    • Sessions are recordings of 2.5 to 15.8 h, not the paper's days of co-housing per dyad, and the dandiset does not say whether each session was annotated in full.
    • The comparison of 3.5 per hour comes from Extended Data Fig. 3b (N = 4 dyads); its dyads are not identified.

Not tested in a notebook 12

10 data missing from the dandiset, 2 metadata insufficient
  • BlockedFig. 2b, e, g-i; Fig. 3b-d; Extended Data Figs. 5, 6a, 7a, 7d, 7e· Data missing from the dandiset

    Optically tagged OT-PVN units (21 units) were activated by shepherding, nest entry and dam retrieval, and pairs including OT-PVN units were more correlated than PVN pairs during these behaviours.

    Virgin PVN and OT-PVN units were activated by shepherding or initial nest entry ... found that pairs containing OT-PVN cells were more correlated during shepherding, nest entry and dam retrieval

    Fig. 2b, e, g-i; Fig. 3b-d; Extended Data Figs. 5, 6a, 7a, 7d, 7e

    What the paper reports

    • OT-PVN units activated during shepherding: one-sided Fisher's exact test, p = 0.02 (n = 21 OT-PVN units)
    • OT-PVN units activated during nest entry: one-sided Fisher's exact test, p = 0.01 (n = 21 OT-PVN units)
    • OT-PVN units activated during dam retrieval: one-sided Fisher's exact test, p = 0.02 (n = 17 OT-PVN units)
    • pairs with OT-PVN units against PVN pairs, shepherding: ANOVA and Tukey's multiple-comparison test, p < 10⁻⁴, Tukey-corrected (n = 530 pairs)
    • pairs with OT-PVN units against PVN pairs, nest entry: ANOVA and Tukey's multiple-comparison test, p < 10⁻⁴, Tukey-corrected (n = 776 pairs)
    • pairs with OT-PVN units against PVN pairs, dam retrieval: ANOVA and Tukey's multiple-comparison test, p < 10⁻⁴, Tukey-corrected (n = 278 pairs)

    OT-PVN units were identified by optical tagging at the end of each day; the tagging recordings (laser pulse times) are not in the dandiset, the units table has no label, and the paper's code reads the identities from a spreadsheet ("Identified OXT neurons.xlsx") that is not public. The Zenodo record 5039601 holds Blackrock .nev files of the same co-housing sessions, not the identities. The unit names in the files are the indices 0 to n-1 in every session. The pooled PVN part of these responses is tested in the three ed7a claims.

  • BlockedFig. 2f; Source Data Fig. 2f· Metadata insufficient

    Units activated during shepherding fired less when the virgin chased the dam (6 units, Wilcoxon p = 0.03).

    Units with significant rate changes during shepherding (red) fired less during virgin→dam chases (grey)

    Fig. 2f; Source Data Fig. 2f

    The files have a "Virgin Agressing" label (32 events in 5 sessions with units), which may be the virgin chasing the dam, but neither the files, the Methods nor the code name it. It never overlaps "Mom agressing" and starts at least 162 s from the nearest one. Of the 3 shepherding-activated units, 2 have such episodes; one fires less over 11 episodes (change -25.3, shuffle p = 0.054), the other stops firing in its single episode. Two units cannot test the paper's 6.

  • BlockedExtended Data Figs. 6c-e, 7c· Data missing from the dandiset

    During 5-minute interactions, more virgin PVN units were activated by the dam than by pups (25 of 248 against 7 of 248), and units barely responded to pup calls (1 of 71).

    interactions with dam activated more virgin PVN cells than interactions with pups (with dam: 25/248, with pup: 7/248, p=0.001, two-sided Fisher’s exact test) ... only 1/71 PVN units having significant responses to pup vocalizations

    Extended Data Figs. 6c-e, 7c

    What the paper reports

    • two-sided Fisher's exact test, p = 0.001 (n = 248 PVN neurons)

    The 5-minute interaction periods with the dam or with pups, and the pup call playback times, are not annotated in any file.

  • BlockedFig. 1c, d, f, k; Extended Data Fig. 2· Data missing from the dandiset

    Virgins co-housed with a dam and litter began retrieving pups earlier than virgins co-housed with pups alone (n = 14 and 10, P < 0.0001), and nest entry and shepherding on day 1 correlated with retrieval at the end of day 1 (r = 0.66 and 0.75).

    Virgins co-housed with dams and litters (D+ virgins, n = 14) began reliably retrieving ... earlier than virgins co-housed with pups but without dams (D− virgins, n = 10) ... the more virgins entered the nest, the more likely it was that retrieval occurred on day 1

    Fig. 1c, d, f, k; Extended Data Fig. 2

    What the paper reports

    • retrieval onset, D+ against D− virgins: p < 10⁻⁴ (n = 14 D+ and 10 D− virgins)
    • nest entry on day 1 against retrieval at the end of day 1: r = 0.66, p = 0.009
    • shepherding on day 1 against retrieval at the end of day 1: r = 0.75, p = 0.001

    The daily retrieval tests of the 14 D+ and 10 D- virgins are not in the dandiset; only summary values are in the paper's Source Data, and the videos are on Databrary.

  • BlockedFig. 2a; Extended Data Fig. 4· Data missing from the dandiset

    Chemogenetic silencing of OT-PVN neurons delayed the onset of retrieval in co-housed virgins.

    found that retrieval onset in naive co-housed virgins was delayed (Fig. 2a)

    Fig. 2a; Extended Data Fig. 4

    The DREADD cohort's retrieval scores are not in the dandiset.

  • BlockedFig. 3e-g; Extended Data Fig. 8c, d· Data missing from the dandiset

    Non-co-housed virgins learned to retrieve after watching dams retrieve, with no barrier (11 of 15) or through a transparent barrier (12 of 19), but not through an opaque barrier (2 of 18) or when lacking the oxytocin receptor (3 of 10).

    No barrier: 11 out of 15 virgins retrieving after 40 maternal demonstrations ... transparent: 12 out of 19 virgins retrieving ... opaque: 2 out of 18 virgins retrieving ... OXTR-KO: 3 out of 10 virgins retrieving

    Fig. 3e-g; Extended Data Fig. 8c, d

    What the paper reports

    • no barrier: Fisher's exact test, p = 2 × 10⁻⁴ (n = 15 virgins)
    • transparent barrier: p < 10⁻⁴ (n = 19 virgins)
    • opaque barrier: p = 0.2 (n = 18 virgins)
    • OXTR-KO: p = 0.1 (n = 10 virgins)

    The observation cohorts' retrieval scores are not in the dandiset. The photometry files of six observing virgins hold retrieval tests for two of them only.

  • BlockedFig. 3h-j· Data missing from the dandiset

    PVN units of non-co-housed virgins were activated while watching dam retrievals (15 of 65), some also during the virgin's own retrievals (15 of 41), and only in virgins that went on to retrieve (learners against non-learners, P = 0.0001).

    15 out of 65 PVN neurons increased activity during dam retrieval; right, 15 out of 41 of these units increased activity during self-performance) ... was elevated only in those non-co-housed virgins that eventually began retrieving

    Fig. 3h-j

    What the paper reports

    • p = 10⁻⁴ (n = 3 learners and 5 non-learners)

    All units in the dandiset are from co-housing sessions; no unit recording from an observation session is in it.

  • BlockedFig. 4a-c; Extended Data Fig. 10a· Data missing from the dandiset

    Auditory cortex photometry responses to pup calls increased over co-housing up to the day of retrieval onset (P = 0.003, n = 3).

    We found a progressive increase in photometric signal before the day of retrieval onset

    Fig. 4a-c; Extended Data Fig. 10a

    What the paper reports

    • p = 0.003 (n = n = 3)

    No photometry file has pup call playback, and fibre location is "unknown" in every file; the photometry files are observation and retrieval sessions of Fig. 4g-i.

  • BlockedFig. 4d-f· Data missing from the dandiset

    Single-trial PVN activity correlated with pup-call responses in auditory cortex during observation (r = 0.5, P = 0.00001, n = 4).

    Even before virgins began retrieving pups, single-trial PVN activity correlated with pup call-evoked responses in cortex

    Fig. 4d-f

    What the paper reports

    • r = 0.5, p = 10⁻⁵ (n = n = 4)

    No file holds PVN units together with photometry.

  • BlockedFig. 4g-i; Source Data Fig. 4i· Metadata insufficient

    PVN to auditory cortex projections were activated during observation of dam retrieval in virgins that learned to retrieve (P = 0.02) but not in those that did not (P = 0.5), three animals per group.

    In virgins that began retrieving, PVN→auditory cortex projections were activated during observation of dam retrieval ... PVN→auditory cortex projections were not significantly activated in virgins that did not learn after observation

    Fig. 4g-i; Source Data Fig. 4i

    What the paper reports

    • learners: p = 0.02
    • non-learners: p = 0.5

    The six photometry animals (ROV40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49) match the three learners and three non-learners of the Source Data, but only ROV40 and ROV41 have retrieval-test files, in which they retrieve on Day 1 and Day 2; whether the other four learned is not in the dandiset. The response measure is also not stated; the Source Data values (-12.1 to 65.7 per animal) are on a scale the files cannot be linked to without it, so the claim is also methods_underspecified. The mean change in the 5 s after the dam's retrievals against the 5 s before is positive in all six animals on Day 1 (0.22 to 1.85%), which does not separate the groups even if ROV40 and ROV41 are taken as learners.

  • BlockedFig. 4j, k· Data missing from the dandiset

    An oxytocin receptor antagonist in auditory cortex prevented learning by observation (2 of 10 against 7 of 9), and stimulating OT-PVN fibres in auditory cortex enhanced it (4 of 4 against 2 of 4).

    Infusing a selective oxytocin receptor antagonist (OTA) into virgin left auditory cortex before transparent-barrier observational testing prevented virgins from learning to retrieve ... Optogenetic stimulation of OT-PVN→auditory cortex projections during observational testing with the opaque barrier enhanced retrieval learning

    Fig. 4j, k

    What the paper reports

    • OTA against saline: p = 0.03 (n = 9 saline and 10 OTA virgins)
    • ChETA-EYFP against EYFP: Mantel–Cox test, p = 0.008 (n = 4 ChETA-EYFP and 4 EYFP virgins)

    The infusion and optogenetic cohorts' retrieval scores are not in the dandiset.

  • BlockedExtended Data Fig. 9; Results, Social transmission of maternal behaviour, paragraph 4· Data missing from the dandiset

    Superficial superior colliculus projects to OT-PVN neurons, and stimulating this input replaced visual experience (4 of 5 against 1 of 6 virgins retrieving).

    found projections from medial superficial layers of ipsilateral superior colliculus ... Optogenetic sSC→PVN stimulation could replace visual experience in non-co-housed virgins exposed to maternal retrievals behind an opaque barrier

    Extended Data Fig. 9; Results, Social transmission of maternal behaviour, paragraph 4

    What the paper reports

    • Mantel–Cox test, p = 0.03 (n = 5 ChR2-Venus and 6 control virgins)

    Tracing histology and the stimulation cohort's retrieval scores are not in the dandiset.

Findings about the data

What attempts found about the dandiset itself, for its owner and the archive.

  • Description missingThe behaviour labels ("Mom agressing", "Virgin in rest", "Mom retrieval", "Virgin Agressing", "Mother in nest" and others) have no description; the table's description, "events and states of pups", the same in every file, fits none of them. Shepherding, nest entry and dam retrieval can be named only from the paper's code, and "Virgin Agressing" not at all. One file (V116 03122018) carries both the code's labels and the paper's names.
  • Data missingThe optical tagging recordings and the identity of the 21 OT-PVN units are not in the dandiset, so no oxytocin-specific result can be tested. The behavioural cohorts of Figures 1 to 4, the unit recordings during observation, and the auditory cortex photometry and units are also missing. Units are present for 4 of the paper's 17 recorded virgins.
  • OtherUnits in V110 and V111 have a median 7.0 to 9.2% of inter-spike intervals under 2 ms, and 79 to 90% of their spikes lie within 0.1 ms of a spike of another unit. The Methods say spikes violating a 2 to 3 ms refractory period and spikes recorded at once on 10 or more channels were removed. These units look like multi-unit clusters or one neuron split over several wires. In V111 03032018 the 9 units activated by the dam's retrieval share a median 71% of their spikes pairwise within 0.1 ms, and the retrieval falls on a synchronous burst of about 16 units at 144 to 221 Hz, one of the 12 largest of the session's 3,325 windows of 5 s.
  • Metadata errorSession start times disagree with the dates in the session ids; V116 03082018 and 03102018 start in May 2018, V116 03092018 on 11 March, and V118 03182018 on 23 March, after V118 03192018.
  • File format errorIn V116 03102018 the raw voltage lasts 4.46 h, but spike times and annotations run to 13.4 h; in V118 03222018 annotations run to 2.52 h against 2.27 h of voltage. The spikes and events of these files cannot all come from the recording they are stored with.
  • Description missingThe units table holds spike times and a name only, with no channel, waveform, quality or cell type, and every electrode location is "unknown". V111's three sessions hold 31 units each with spike counts correlated 0.93 to 0.97 across days, and nothing says whether they are the same units.
  • Metadata errorEvery subject is described as "Virgin female co-housed with dam and pups", including the six photometry animals of the observation experiment. Photometry fibre location, fluorophore, wavelengths and gain are "unknown" or NaN; the trace is stated in watts with values near 1000; the commanded_voltage series, described as the LED command, varies from 0.07 to 482 within sessions and is not a command signal.
  • Description missingWhich photometry animals learned to retrieve is in the dandiset for 2 of 6 (ROV40 and ROV41, from their retrieval-test files), so the learner and non-learner groups of Fig. 4i cannot be formed.
  • OtherNo test here established that spikes and annotations share a clock; the firing change at annotation onsets was not larger at the stated times than at shifts of up to 2 minutes in any session.
  • Published code disagreesThe Methods cut nest entry episodes at 40 s and use the 10 s before shepherding and dam retrieval as baseline; the paper's significance code has the cap commented out and uses an equal-duration baseline for every behaviour. On this data the cap changes the fraction of units activated during nest entry from 1.0% to 21.6%.
  • Selection not documentedThe dandiset holds units from 4 virgins (228 units in 8 sessions), no units for V85, V116 03122018 and three V118 sessions, and annotations limited to "Mother in nest" in two V118 files, against 17 recorded virgins and 541 units in the paper. It does not say which recordings were deposited or why.

Notebooks

Every registered entry that uses this dandiset. An entry can hold several notebooks, and can use more than one dandiset.

Reproduction PVN units and maternal behaviour in co-housed virgin mice (Carcea et al. 2021)

Tests the findings of Carcea et al. (2021) that dandiset 000114 can support. The dandiset holds PVN single units and video annotations from virgin mice co-housed with a dam and litter, and fibre photometry from virgins watching dam retrievals. The entry tests the fraction of units activated during nest entry, shepherding and dam retrieval, the firing after shepherded against voluntary nest entries, and the rates of shepherding and dam retrieval. OT-PVN identity, the behavioural cohorts and the auditory cortex data are not in the dandiset. All files

Verification

  • Round 1
    2026-10-16    Agreed with 19 of 19 outcomes. Independent agent run by CatalystNeuro (same harness, separate context, did not write the notebook). Reviewed: Round 1. The first executed notebook with the conclusion cells and the summary removed, the helper module and the claims file, with the paper. The verifier tested helper functions on synthetic inputs and checked the archive's file list for the blocked claims. Its report had no attempt record and gave its own outcome for each claim; all 19 agree with the record.
  • Round 2
    2026-10-16    Agreed with 19 of 19 outcomes. Independent agent run by CatalystNeuro (same harness, separate context, did not write the notebook). Reviewed: Round 2. The full executed notebook after the first revision, with its conclusions and summary, the helper module, the claims file, the attempt record and the entry README, with the paper. The verifier checked each conclusion, the summary, the README table and the record notes against the printed outputs, and whether the record gave its round-1 reasons in its own words. It agreed with all 19 outcomes.

Method differences

How the tests differed from the paper’s method or data, and the claims each applies to.

  • Real episodes without spikes are left out as in the code, and V111's sessions counted separately, as for nest entry; both are also shown the other way.ed7a-shepherding-fraction ed7a-dam-retrieval-fraction
  • The Methods' 10 s baseline is used; the code's equal-duration baseline is shown as a variant.ed7a-shepherding-fraction ed7a-dam-retrieval-fraction
  • The names come from the paper's code, not from the dandiset; "Mom aggressing" in V85 is taken as the same label as "Mom agressing".label-link
  • Units from 4 virgins and 7 sessions (194 units), against the paper's 147 units from more animals; which sessions the paper used is not stated.ed7a-nest-entry-fraction
  • OT-PVN and PVN units are pooled and the false discovery rate is applied over each session's units, as OT identity is not in the dandiset; the Methods apply it over OT-PVN or PVN units of a day.ed7a-nest-entry-fraction
  • The baseline ends 0.5 s before the episode, from the code; the Methods do not give it.ed7a-nest-entry-fraction
  • V111's three sessions probably hold the same clusters (spike counts correlated 0.93 to 0.97) and are counted as separate units, as the paper counts units per day.ed7a-nest-entry-fraction
  • As in the code, real episodes with no spike in either window are left out of a unit's mean, while shuffled ones count as 0; counting both as 0 is shown as a variant, as is counting V111 once.ed7a-nest-entry-fraction
  • Units from 4 virgins and 7 sessions, OT-PVN and PVN pooled, as for nest entry.ed7a-shepherding-fraction
  • Units from 2 virgins and 5 sessions with 1 to 11 retrieval episodes each; OT-PVN and PVN pooled.ed7a-dam-retrieval-fraction
  • The paper does not say how a nest entry was classed as shepherded or which 18 units were used; the rule (entry starting from the start of a shepherding episode to 10 s after its end) and the unit set were fixed before the analysis.fig2j-shepherded-entry
  • Sessions are recordings of 2.5 to 15.8 h, not the paper's days of co-housing per dyad, and the dandiset does not say whether each session was annotated in full.fig1j-shepherding-rate
  • The comparison of 3.5 per hour comes from Extended Data Fig. 3b (N = 4 dyads); its dyads are not identified.fig1j-shepherding-rate
  • Rates from 5 cages over 10 sessions, against the paper's 14 dams over 4 days.ed8a-dam-retrieval-rate

Provenance

Attempt record
000114-carcea-2021-01
Paper
Oxytocin neurons enable social transmission of maternal behaviour
Date
2026-10-16
Made by
An agent, run by CatalystNeuro
Dandiset version
0.230602.1643
Harness
Claude Code (GitHub Actions)
Model
claude-opus-5-5
Protocol
pilot-7

Transcripts of the agent runs

Each run’s prompt, messages and tool calls, with long output cut and the text of the paper left out, and its final report.

← Dandiset 000070Dandiset 000121 →