The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Neocaridina identity evidence

Decoding color variation: genome-wide characterization and expression analysis of pigment pathways in Neocaridina denticulata

Bai et al., 2026. BMC Genomics 27: 535.

Open the source

This record is a claim boundary, not a quality badge. Evidence class and species relationship describe what was studied. They do not make the result universal, complete or automatically applicable to a home aquarium.

Source taxon as published
Purchased red, yellow and blue Neocaridina denticulata strains without reported voucher, diagnostic identity method, trade names or ancestry
Environment
Purchased red, yellow and blue strains held in 29 x 18 x 15 cm transparent recirculation-system tanks at 26 +/- 2 C and pH 7.2 to 7.5, with the number of tanks and strain-to-tank allocation unreported
Life stages
10-to-15-day post-hatch juveniles 0.4 to 0.6 cm long, adults 1.8 to 2.2 cm long
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Pigment-pathway homologs were identified from public BioProjects and unpublished laboratory genomic and transcriptomic data. Six adult tissues and whole juveniles were compared by 18S-normalized qPCR with three biological samples and technical triplicates. CRCN abundance was compared by western blot, and fluorescence at 380/450 nm was measured after separate cephalothorax and abdomen extraction with hepatopancreas and intestine removed.

Experimental unit: Three biological samples per strain and endpoint were reported, but the number and sex of shrimp per sample, pooling, molt state, independent source-tank history, number of culture tanks and strain-to-tank allocation were not defined; technical triplicates are subsamples

Endpoints: candidate pigment-pathway homologs and phylogenies, adult-tissue and whole-juvenile relative gene expression, CRCN western-blot band intensity relative to tubulin, body-region relative fluorescence used as a pteridine proxy.

Claim boundary

What it can support: The tested red, yellow and blue source strains differed in selected tissue and juvenile transcript levels, CRCN western-blot abundance and body-region relative fluorescence. These cross-sectional associations identify candidate carotenoid and pteridine pathways for follow-up; the tested blue strain had higher normalized CRCN band intensity than the red and yellow strains.

What it cannot support: The study did not manipulate candidate genes, cross strains, measure inheritance, quantify a standardized visible-colour phenotype, identify or quantify individual pteridine compounds, assay carotenoid composition, assign diets or validate seller lines. Its red, yellow and blue labels were not connected to named aquarium morphs, vouchers, diagnostic species confirmation, ancestry or pedigrees. Three biological samples per endpoint, unresolved animal pooling and tank history, an unreported calibrator for 2^-delta-delta-Ct comparisons, relative fluorescence without reported tissue-mass normalization, unpublished sequence inputs and low-powered distribution tests at n = 3 limit causal or reproducible pathway ranking. The work cannot provide a genotype test, dominance chart, feed or carotenoid prescription, colour-grade prediction, ancestry claim or commercial trade-line pedigree.

Publication status audit

Matched in dated Crossref query

The canonical DOI appeared in the dated broad query and carried no registered update in that response. This is a metadata observation, not proof that the work has never changed.

Metadata snapshot reviewed 2026-08-12. Inspect the method, unmatched queue and limitations.

Correction impact

If this source boundary changes, these are the known downstream consumers. The list distinguishes scientific re-review from generated parity and historical follow-up.

Editorial review required (9)

This curated wording or synthesis must be reconsidered when the source boundary changes. A passing generator test cannot decide the new scientific meaning.

  • colours decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • genetics decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • species decision card Tank-side decision card
    The card translates this guide into an observation, first action, next record and stopping boundary, so all four require editorial review when the source changes.
  • colours practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • genetics practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • species practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • named-morph-crosses knowledge gap Canonical knowledge gap
    The current knowledge-gap boundary depends on a dated search that used this exact source and must be reconsidered if the source meaning changes.
  • named-morph-crosses answerability brief Answerability brief
    The decision, endpoint, minimum design or closure rule may change when evidence used in the linked gap search is corrected.
  • named-morph-crosses research allocation Current research allocation
    The current allocation, activation trigger, next permitted unit or stop decision may change when evidence used in the linked gap search is corrected.

Generated from governing registry (16)

This surface derives from a governing registry and should update with it, but release tests must still prove parity and routing.

Historical record needs follow-up decision (2)

Do not silently rewrite history. Decide whether the prior change record remains accurate and publish a new correction or scope note when needed.

Inspect the corpus-wide propagation audit.

How this record is classified

Controlled experiment: An assigned treatment or controlled comparison. The treatment, unit, duration and endpoint still limit the claim.

Neocaridina identity evidence: The source addresses identity, relationships or genetics within the Neocaridina complex.

Topics: Colour, Genetics, Species and taxonomy

Critically appraise this source without a score

These questions fit this record's controlled experiment role. They are prompts, not automatic judgments. Open the original source to answer them.

  1. Identity and provenance: How were the organism, population, stock and life stage identified and sourced? A published name or seller label can hide a taxonomic, population or life-stage transfer.
  2. Independent unit: What unit was independently assigned or sampled, and how many units support each comparison? Animal counts do not create independent replication when animals share a vessel, site, family or treatment history.
  3. Comparison and context: What was the actual comparator, allocation process, environment, duration and material condition? A result has meaning only against the comparison and conditions that produced it.
  4. Endpoint and measurement: Which endpoint was measured, with what method, unit, timing, resolution and decision rule? One endpoint cannot silently become survival, welfare, diagnosis, reproduction or long-term population performance.
  5. Denominators and missingness: Are starting counts, exclusions, losses, missing observations and analysis denominators reconciled? Unreported or changing denominators can alter the apparent direction, precision and applicability of a result.
  6. Transfer boundary: What is the nearest tempting aquarium claim that this source design cannot establish? Direct evidence can still be narrow, and adjacent evidence can be useful only while the inference remains visible.
  7. Treatment assignment: Were independent units assigned to treatments, and were baseline conditions comparable? Unclear allocation or baseline imbalance can confound the treatment comparison.
  8. Replication: Were treatment vessels or other exposure units independently replicated rather than subsampled? Repeated animals or assays inside one exposure unit do not replicate the environmental treatment.
  9. Exposure verification: Was the treatment, dose, feed intake or environmental exposure measured and maintained as described? Nominal treatment labels may not equal the exposure animals actually received.
  10. Analysis: Did the statistical model match the unit, repeated measures, multiplicity and missing outcomes? A precise p-value cannot repair a mismatched unit or unaccounted comparison structure.

Read the complete appraisal framework.

Where it is used

Reuse the reviewed citation boundary

Download CSL-JSON or download RIS. Both retain this record's support, limitation and review note.

Challenge a transcription, interpretation or missing boundary. A challenge changes the record only after editorial review.