The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Gene expression profiling and expression analysis of freshwater shrimp (Neocaridina denticulata denticulata) using expressed sequence tags and short-term exposure to copper

Kim et al., 2018. Journal of Environmental Biology 39(1): 51-57.

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
Ten wild Lake Chang Pyung animals and separate exposure animals labelled Neocaridina denticulata denticulata; no diagnostic or molecular identification method reported, and the exposure-animal source was not separately stated
Environment
Aerated natural lake water for the baseline cDNA library; copper-exposure conditions reported as 20 C, pH 8.0, dissolved oxygen above 5.6 mg/L and 28 PSU salinity, despite the freshwater lake animal description
Life stages
wild-source whole animals of unreported size and sex, copper-exposure animals of unreported source, size and sex
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: A baseline whole-body cDNA library from ten non-exposed wild shrimp produced 1,247 high-quality expressed sequence tags and 603 unique sequences. A separate short-term copper experiment used three shrimp per treatment, a time series at 0, 1, 3, 6, 9 and 24 hours with the copper concentration unstated, and a 24-hour nominal dose series whose figure labels 0, 1, 2, 5, 10 and 100 micrograms per litre. Pooled whole-body RNA was assayed by real-time RT-PCR for 14 selected transcripts using beta-actin as the sole reference gene.

Experimental unit: The report does not identify the exposure container, independent vessel replication or random allocation. Three shrimp are described per treatment and their total RNA was pooled before cDNA synthesis; the triplicate experiments and figure N of 3 therefore do not clearly identify independent biological replicates.

Endpoints: baseline expressed sequence tags and sequence annotation, relative whole-body mRNA abundance for 14 selected targets.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Under the reported short-term nominal copper protocol, all 14 selected transcripts varied in at least part of the time or concentration series, and nine were reported to increase by more than two-fold at one or more observations from 1 to 24 hours. This supports a candidate short-term pooled whole-body transcriptional response, not a validated field biomarker.

What it cannot support: The copper material, concentration used for the time series, exposure vessels, independent vessel replication, allocation, acclimation, feeding, water renewal and measured water concentrations were not reported. The prose loses the dose unit while the figure labels micrograms per litre, and the stated 28 PSU salinity conflicts with the freshwater lake description. Pooling makes the biological denominator unclear, beta-actin stability and PCR efficiencies were not reported, and repeated target-by-time and target-by-dose tests had no reported multiplicity model. Transcript changes do not establish protein abundance, toxicity, survival, molting impairment, immune competence, chronic harm, a safe concentration, diagnosis or validated biomarker panel.

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 (5)

This curated wording or synthesis must be reconsidered when the source boundary changes. A passing generator test cannot decide the new scientific meaning.

  • Any copper kills shrimp or copper is safe Curated claim check
    The exact claim trace uses this record as direct support: Measures copper-associated transcript responses without establishing a home safe or lethal product rule.
  • 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.
  • A biological response is not automatically a care threshold Curated evidence comparison
    The bounded reconciliation and unresolved question use this record in an explicit comparison.
  • chemical-safety practical guide Practical guide
    The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary.
  • round1-synthesis-chemical Curated first-round reviewer assignment
    The frozen reviewer scope or consequential-failure check uses this record through the assigned claim trace or comparison and must be reconsidered before invitation or response.

Generated from governing registry (13)

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.

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

Topics: Chemical exposure, Health, Genetics

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

Where this result is compared

These governed comparisons show why this record can appear to conflict with another result without electing a winner or hiding unresolved uncertainty.

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.