The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Neocaridina identity evidence

Physiological and biochemical characterization of trypsin from Neocaridina denticulata sinensis and its roles in ontogenesis and immune response

Feng et al., 2026. PLOS ONE 21(2): e0342746.

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
Market-sourced shrimp acclimated for seven days in recirculating laboratory aquaria at 25 C, followed by molecular assays, injected bacterial challenge and isolated recombinant-protein tests
Life stages
embryo, larva, juvenile or adult research shrimp
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: The NdTryp gene was cloned, expression was profiled across tissues and nine embryonic stages, in situ hybridization localized transcripts, RNA interference was followed by injected Vibrio parahaemolyticus challenge, and recombinant protein activity was tested in vitro.

Experimental unit: Individual shrimp for animal endpoints, usually three animals per group or time point; the wording for pooled embryonic samples does not clearly separate the three individuals from the stated three biological replicates, and recombinant-enzyme measurements used technical triplicates

Endpoints: tissue and developmental expression, hepatopancreatic localization, RNA interference knockdown, histopathology after bacterial injection, recombinant enzyme activity.

Claim boundary

What it can support: NdTryp expression was highest in the hepatopancreas and localized mainly to R cells and epithelial cells lining its tubules. Expression appeared late in embryonic development, rose after the tested bacterial injection, and knockdown before challenge was associated with more severe hepatopancreatic damage than the dsEGFP challenged control.

What it cannot support: The injected laboratory challenge, small animal groups and ambiguous embryonic pooling do not establish natural infection, diagnosis, treatment, survival or pathogen clearance. The recombinant enzyme optima and 20 mM ion assays are not aquarium pH, temperature, mineral, copper or cadmium targets. No feeding trial tested trypsin as an additive, digestibility aid or growth treatment, and no explicitly described uninfected RNA interference histology control isolates knockdown injury from infection interaction.

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.

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: Anatomy, Breeding, Feeding, Health

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.