Open this record in the complete research map
A type I crustin with an inhibitory effect on proteases and strong binding capacity to chitin from Neocaridina denticulata sinensis
Feng et al., 2025. Comparative Immunology Reports 8: 200226.
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
- Market-source Neocaridina denticulata sinensis without reported voucher or diagnostic identity confirmation
- Environment
- Market-source shrimp held at 25 C in aerated circulating water, followed by tissue expression work and isolated recombinant-protein assays
- Life stages
- healthy research shrimp reported as 1.5 +/- 0.5 cm
- Reviewed
- 2026-08-12
What was studied
Study shape: The NdCrus1 cDNA was cloned, transcript abundance was compared across ten tissues from three healthy shrimp, recombinant NdCrus1 was expressed in Escherichia coli, and the purified protein was tested against bacterial growth, selected proteases, chitin materials, reducing conditions and heat pretreatment.
Experimental unit: Individual shrimp or tissue RNA for expression work and a bacterial culture, protein reaction or material-binding preparation for in vitro endpoints; three replicates were commonly reported, but biological and technical replication was not mapped clearly for every assay
Endpoints: tissue transcript abundance, bacterial growth and inhibition zones, purified and bacterial protease inhibition, chitin and chitosan binding, activity after reducing-agent exposure, activity after purified-protein heat pretreatment.
Claim boundary
What it can support: NdCrus1 was cloned and its recombinant protein inhibited proteinase K and proteases in selected bacterial preparations, showed qualitative binding to chitin materials, and lost inhibitory activity after stronger reducing or heat pretreatments. It did not significantly inhibit growth of Bacillus subtilis or Vibrio parahaemolyticus in the reported bacterial-growth assay.
What it cannot support: The study did not challenge living shrimp, manipulate NdCrus1 in living shrimp or measure survival, clinical signs, pathogen load, clearance, transmission or protection. An antimicrobial-peptide family label and in vitro protease inhibition do not establish disease resistance, diagnosis or treatment. Qualitative chitin and chitosan binding does not validate a feed, prebiotic, supplement, molting aid or dose. The 30 to 100 C pretreatments were applied to purified recombinant protein and are not shrimp temperature-tolerance or aquarium-care tests. Tissue expression used only three animals and the ovary and testis sampling allocation was unclear. No voucher, morphological diagnosis or molecular identity confirmation was reported for market-source animals.
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 (2)
This curated wording or synthesis must be reconsidered when the source boundary changes. A passing generator test cannot decide the new scientific meaning.
- 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. - 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 (10)
This surface derives from a governing registry and should update with it, but release tests must still prove parity and routing.
- Record CSL-JSON citation Citation export
The record citation export derives its note and source metadata from the evidence registry. - Record RIS citation Citation export
The record citation export derives its note and source metadata from the evidence registry. - Complete CSL-JSON bibliography Citation export
The complete citation export includes every evidence registry record. - Complete RIS bibliography Citation export
The complete citation export includes every evidence registry record. - health portable decision card Generated decision-card text
The portable text derives from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section and both permanent links. - health complete visual decision card Generated decision-card visual
The typography-only visual and exact accessibility description derive from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section. - A type I crustin with an inhibitory effect on proteases and strong binding capacity to chitin from Neocaridina denticulata sinensis Canonical evidence page
The canonical evidence page derives from the current evidence registry record. - health evidence dossier Generated guide dossier
The dossier derives its linked evidence set from the record care path. - Machine-readable knowledge export Machine-readable knowledge export
The versioned export includes the complete evidence registry and source-integrity audit. - Research map record Research map
The research map derives its source boundary from the evidence registry.
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.
- An antimicrobial-family name is not disease resistance Historical research change
The historical change cites this source. Preserve the old decision and decide whether a new public correction is required.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Treatment assignment: Were independent units assigned to treatments, and were baseline conditions comparable? Unclear allocation or baseline imbalance can confound the treatment comparison.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.