The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

System observation or method study Direct Neocaridina evidence

Rapid Change of Microbiota Diversity in the Gut but Not the Hepatopancreas During Gonadal Development of the New Shrimp Model Neocaridina denticulata

Cheung et al., 2015. Marine Biotechnology 17(6): 811-819.

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
Laboratory red-patched Neocaridina denticulata denticulata linked to the Kenny et al. stock; the commercial foundation stock had no reported voucher, morphology or molecular host-identification method
Environment
Adult females from a multigeneration recirculating freshwater laboratory stock at approximately 25 C; all were starved for two days before dissection
Life stages
adult female classified as early ovarian maturation, adult female classified as mid ovarian maturation, adult female classified as late ovarian maturation or egg carrying
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Three adult females at each of three visually assigned ovarian stages were sampled cross-sectionally. Foregut, intestine including midgut and hindgut, and hepatopancreas were dissected from every female, producing 27 individually sequenced 16S V1-V3 libraries. PCR reactions were run in triplicate and pooled within each library. Ion Torrent reads were processed in QIIME 1.8, clustered into 97 percent OTUs, assigned against Greengenes at 0.5 confidence, rarefied to 14,000 reads and compared with alpha-diversity indices, UniFrac PCoA and UPGMA trees.

Experimental unit: Individual female for ovarian-stage comparisons, with three females per stage and three linked tissue libraries per female. Triplicate PCR reactions were technical replicates pooled within a library, not additional animals. The paper did not report a repeated-measures model for tissues from the same female.

Endpoints: quality-filtered 16S read count, 97 percent OTU richness, Chao1 richness, Shannon diversity, phylogenetic diversity, weighted and unweighted UniFrac clustering, relative read abundance by bacterial taxon, SRA accession SRR1735538.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Within this nine-female stock after two days of starvation, early-stage foregut and intestine libraries had lower reported alpha diversity than later-stage libraries, hepatopancreas libraries generally differed from gut libraries, and more than 80 percent of early-stage gut reads were assigned to one Coxiella-type OTU. The study provides a public 16S survey associated with tissue region and visually assigned ovarian stage.

What it cannot support: This was a small cross-sectional association, not the same females followed through ovarian development and not an assigned microbiota or reproductive treatment. Stage could be confounded with age, time, individual and egg-carrying status. Relative read abundance is compositional and does not measure absolute bacterial load, prevalence among shrimp or colonization. A short 16S Coxiella-type assignment at a low classification threshold is not a species or strain identification, Coxiella burnetii diagnosis, cultured isolate, pathogen finding or probiotic. The paper reported t tests without specifying exact contrasts, pairing, tails, variance handling, test statistics, degrees of freedom or multiplicity correction, and reported no formal group-level beta-diversity test. No extraction blank, PCR negative control, mock community, random selection or blinding was described. The paper did not test bacterial function, microbial transfer, probiotic or antibiotic exposure, fertility, spawning, hatch, offspring, growth, survival, disease, immune response, feed treatment or normal fed-tank baseline. It cannot show that microbes cause ovarian maturation, that maturation causes the microbiota difference or that changing aquarium bacteria improves breeding or health.

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 (8)

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

  • anatomy 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.
  • breeding 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.
  • feeding 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.
  • health 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.
  • anatomy practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • breeding practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • feeding practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • health practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.

Generated from governing registry (19)

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 (1)

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

System observation or method study: An aquarium, analytical or biological system was observed without an assigned Neocaridina animal treatment. The species relationship still identifies whether the evidence is biological or system-adjacent.

Direct Neocaridina evidence: The source measured animals named within Neocaridina. Direct still does not mean universal or sufficient.

Topics: Breeding, Feeding, Health, Anatomy

Critically appraise this source without a score

These questions fit this record's system observation or method study 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. System relationship: Was the measured unit an aquarium system, analytical method, another taxon or another biological level? A system or method result is not automatically a Neocaridina animal response.
  8. Inference mechanism: What explicit mechanism or shared property makes the adjacent evidence relevant? Similarity must be stated and tested rather than assumed from a broad label.
  9. Target validation: Has the method or inference been validated in Neocaridina, the intended water, life stage and decision range? Analytical validity in one matrix or biological validity in another species may not transfer.
  10. Permitted use: Is the source being used only for its method or system role rather than promoted to animal evidence? Useful adjacent evidence becomes misleading when its role is silently upgraded.

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.