The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

System observation or method study Direct Neocaridina evidence

Genome-wide identification of the crustacyanin gene family in Neocaridina denticulata sinensis based on comparative genomics and localization analysis

Feng et al., 2025. BMC Genomics 26: 1151.

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
Neocaridina denticulata sinensis
Environment
Aquaculture-center shrimp 1.8 plus or minus 0.2 cm, acclimated for two weeks in a 29 by 18 by 15 cm recirculating tank at 25 plus or minus 1 C and fed Sera Shrimp Natural twice daily
Life stages
1.8 plus or minus 0.2 cm aquaculture-center shrimp
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: The authors identified CRCN-family candidates in an unpublished laboratory genome, compared the family across six crustaceans, examined a 15-library five-tissue expression matrix with three libraries per tissue, ran epidermal qPCR, expressed NdCRCN-6 in Escherichia coli, generated a mouse polyclonal antibody and used western blotting and immunohistochemistry for tissue localization.

Experimental unit: Gene and genome for computational analyses; 15 transcriptome libraries with three per tissue but no reported animal-versus-pool provenance; qPCR reports three samples without defining the biological animal unit; western-blot preparations, immunohistochemistry sections and independent animal counts were not reported

Endpoints: CRCN candidate-gene count and location, gene-family phylogeny and duplication, tissue expression matrix, epidermal qPCR, antibody reactivity, epidermal and muscle immunolocalization.

Claim boundary

What it can support: The source genome contained 24 CRCN-family candidates, mostly clustered on chromosome 23, with seven reported tandem-duplicated pairs. The 15-library matrix and qPCR showed differing tissue and epidermal expression patterns, and the generated antibody produced CRCN-family signal in epidermis and muscle under the reported assays.

What it cannot support: This is a molecular identification and localization study, not a colour-strain, diet, breeding or grading experiment. It did not measure visible colour, chromatophores, astaxanthin amount, direct astaxanthin binding in Neocaridina, growth, survival, reproduction, molt, health or selection response. One unpublished source genome cannot establish population-wide copy number, variants or commercial-line identity. Total shrimp count, tank count, sex, age, colour line, lineage and taxon-identification method were not reported. The tissue libraries do not resolve animals versus pools, and the paper does not define the biological unit behind three qPCR samples. Primer efficiencies and a calibrator were not reported for cross-gene qPCR comparisons. High CRCN sequence similarity means the polyclonal antibody may recognize multiple family members, so localization cannot assign each subunit a distinct function. Independent animals, section counts, blinded scoring and quantitative image methods were not reported. Muscle transport, epidermal colour modulation and individual-subunit functions remain inferred rather than directly measured. The accession CRA018357 is linked only to the archive homepage in the article and does not resolve these sample-provenance gaps. Twenty-four candidate genes do not mean 24 visible traits, a trade-line inheritance chart, a consumer genetic test or a colour-food recommendation.

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 (4)

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.
  • 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.

Generated from governing registry (13)

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

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: Colour, Genetics, 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.