The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Bisphenol A disrupts epithelial homeostasis in the midgut of the freshwater shrimp Neocaridina davidi

Gorol et al., 2026. The European Zoological Journal 93(1): 563-582.

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 davidi
Environment
Adult shrimp held individually in 0.5-litre containers at 21 C, pH 7 and GH 10, fed ad libitum, with excrement removed every 12 hours and fresh nominal exposure water prepared for each animal
Life stages
adult male, adult female
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: As a continuation of the 2025 experiment, adults received clean water or nominal 1, 5 or 10 mg/L BPA for 24, 48 or 72 hours. Qualitative methods used organs from five animals per group and quantitative methods used five cell suspensions per group.

Experimental unit: Individually exposed adult and its derived organ or cell preparation; this continued the earlier exposure program and is not evidence of an independent replication

Endpoints: reactive oxygen species, apoptosis and necrosis, caspase and Bcl-2 states, DNA damage, mitochondrial structure and membrane potential, reduced glutathione.

Claim boundary

What it can support: The assigned acute BPA treatments changed multiple intestine and hepatopancreas cell endpoints. Reactive-oxygen signals were highest after 24 hours and then declined, while cell-death, mitochondrial and DNA-damage responses varied by organ, concentration and time; hepatopancreas DNA damage was higher after 48 hours at every tested concentration.

What it cannot support: This is a continuation of the same nominal concentration and exposure design as the 2025 publication, not independent confirmation. Concentrations were not analytically verified, controls were clean-water organ groups rather than an explicitly time-matched series, and five method preparations per group do not establish the total number of independent animals across assays. Declining reactive-oxygen signal does not prove recovery because other cellular endpoints changed on different timelines. No whole-animal survival, behaviour, reproduction, chronic effect or recovery endpoint was measured. It does not establish an aquarium BPA threshold, a general plastic-safety rule or a diagnosis from visible symptoms.

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 (6)

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.
  • chemical-safety 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.
  • chemical-safety 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 (16)

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.

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

Topics: Chemical exposure, Health, Anatomy

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.