The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Neocaridina identity evidence

Functional Analysis of NdBCO-like4 Gene in Pigmentation of Neocaridina denticulata sinensis

Huo et al., 2025. Fishes 10(3): 134.

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
Laboratory red, blue, yellow and wild or transparent strains labelled Neocaridina denticulata sinensis
Environment
Laboratory-owned strains selectively bred for more than three years and cultured separately in glass tanks at about 25 C, with aerated tap water, planted aquarium soil, daily compound feed and 50 percent water changes every three days
Life stages
approximately 1.2 cm strain sample, pre-nauplius embryo, metanauplius embryo, pre-zoea embryo, membrane-zoea embryo, young shrimp
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Adult and tissue expression used seven individual samples per strain. Embryonic expression pooled all sampled embryos from one berried female as one replicate, with seven maternal replicates per source-defined stage. For RNA interference, metanauplius embryos from each of five red-strain mothers were divided into sibling treatment and control wells of 15 embryos, exposed ex vivo after hypochlorous-acid membrane softening to 5 micrograms per millilitre NdBCO-like4 or EGFP dsRNA in ultra-pure water, and photographed after 24 hours. A transcriptome-derived candidate SNP was then targeted for genotyping in four laboratory strains.

Experimental unit: Individual shrimp for adult and tissue expression, nested within separately maintained strain tanks whose number and replication were not stated; maternal clutch for the five-mother paired RNA-interference comparison; individual shrimp for genotyping, although the reported figure totals do not reconcile with the stated 192 individuals per strain

Endpoints: NdBCO-like4 expression by strain, tissue and developmental stage, RNA-interference target expression, red-channel pixel brightness ratio, pigment-particle distribution index, candidate-SNP genotype frequency, predicted RNA secondary structure.

Claim boundary

What it can support: In the sampled laboratory strains, NdBCO-like4 expression was higher in the red strain than the yellow, blue and wild or transparent strains and varied across the five source-defined developmental stages. In the five paired maternal clutches, embryos receiving NdBCO-like4 dsRNA had lower red-channel brightness ratios and pigment-particle distribution indices than EGFP-dsRNA sibling controls under the artificial 24-hour exposure. The G.1719G>A candidate occurred in every sampled strain at different reported genotype frequencies.

What it cannot support: This is evidence of molecular involvement under the source assays, not a validated commercial-line marker, inheritance chart or consumer genetic test. The paper does not report the number of culture tanks per strain, so strain, family and shared tank history cannot be separated. The ex vivo RNA-interference protocol used removed embryos, 1 to 5 percent hypochlorous acid for 1 to 2 minutes, ultra-pure water and destructive molecular sampling; it is not a breeding or colour-enhancement method. A blank control is described but omitted from the displayed RNA-interference results, scoring regions and blinding are not reported, one reference gene was used without reported stability validation, and the split-clutch design was analysed with an independent t-test rather than an explicit paired model. The results text calls the target-expression decrease p greater than 0.05 while the discussion calls it significant. The abstract calls G.1719G>A synonymous, whereas the results and discussion call it a missense or non-synonymous D445N change. The same strain is called wild in the methods and transparent in figures. Although the methods state 192 genotyped individuals per strain, the Figure 7 genotype counts total 148 red, 95 yellow, 190 blue and 172 transparent animals, without explaining missing calls. The variant-frequency association does not establish causation, dominance, parentage, pedigree, selection response or identity for Blue Dream, Sunkist, Bloody Mary or any seller line.

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.
  • 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.
  • anatomy 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.

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.

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

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: Colour, Genetics, Anatomy, Breeding

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.