The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

System observation or method study Neocaridina identity evidence

Identification of Functional SSR Markers in Freshwater Ornamental Shrimps Neocaridina denticulata Using Transcriptome Sequencing

Huang et al., 2020. Marine Biotechnology 22: 772-785.

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
Supplier-sourced super red shrimp and chocolate shrimp labelled Neocaridina denticulata, plus a native black-shell strain used in marker development; no voucher or diagnostic identity method was reported
Environment
Separate supplier strains maintained in a flow-through breeding system at 22 to 25 C, pH 6.5 to 7.0 and GH 3 to 4; tank count, strain allocation and family history before the reported crosses were not defined
Life stages
one-to-four-week-old transcriptome sample, selected adult parent, F1 offspring from pure-strain and reciprocal crosses
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: RNA from three young super red and three young chocolate shrimp supplied one aggregate sequencing result per phenotype on an Illumina HiSeq 2000. Transcriptome SSR candidates were screened by PCR, sixteen amplified, and five polymorphic loci were reported across offspring from super red, chocolate and reciprocal crosses. Supplementary Figure S4 reports the largest eight females and males from each source strain as parents and three families per cross group.

Experimental unit: The transcriptome comparison appears to contain one pooled library per phenotype rather than independent biological libraries. The paper states 50 offspring in each of four cross groups, but Table 6 frequencies for both reciprocal hybrids occur in eighths and no individual genotype file, missing-call denominator, family allocation or family-aware analysis is supplied.

Endpoints: assembled transcriptome and annotation, phenotype-group expression counts, SSR discovery and PCR feasibility, allele and genotype counts, heterozygosity and polymorphic information content, genotype frequencies across four cross groups.

Claim boundary

What it can support: The study developed five polymorphic transcriptome-derived SSR loci and found different genotype-frequency patterns among its sampled Larmax super red, chocolate and reciprocal-cross groups. The loci are candidates for population and cross validation within the sampled breeding material.

What it cannot support: One apparent pooled RNA library per phenotype cannot support replicated differential-expression inference. The study did not report standardized colour measurements, individual phenotypes, complete genotype denominators, parent-to-offspring assignments, Mendelian segregation, linkage, causal variants, blind classification or an independent validation population. The stated 200-offspring method conflicts with hybrid frequencies in eighths, and the claimed 4.31 percent single-marker and 0.0018 percent combined-marker misrecognition rates are not derived in the article or supplements and were not measured on a held-out test set. Multiple genotype tests were reported without a multiplicity correction and p values were printed as 0.000. These loci do not certify purity, pedigree, ancestry, diversity, Blue Dream, Sunkist, Bloody Mary or any other seller line, and super red is not evidence for equivalence to a current red trade name.

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.

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

Neocaridina identity evidence: The source addresses identity, relationships or genetics within the Neocaridina complex.

Topics: Colour, Genetics, Breeding, Species and taxonomy

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.