The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Genes are differentially expressed at transcriptional level of Neocaridina denticulata following short-term exposure to nonylphenol

Liu and Sung, 2011. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 87(3): 220-225.

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
Environment
Twenty-litre glass aquaria with 18 litres of pond water at 28 C, pH 6.9 to 7.5, dissolved oxygen above 4 mg/L and one-day nominal nonylphenol exposure
Life stages
research shrimp 2 to 3 cm long
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: A preliminary one-day mortality check used nominal 0.1, 0.5, 0.75 and 1 mg/L nonylphenol. Formal one-day exposures used nominal 0.001, 0.01, 0.1 and 0.5 mg/L with 60 shrimp described per 18-litre treatment aquarium and a diluted DMSO solvent control. Suppression subtractive hybridization at 0.5 mg/L generated candidate expressed sequence tags, followed by semi-quantitative RT-PCR across the concentration series.

Experimental unit: Exposure aquarium for treatment assignment and pooled whole-animal RNA sample for transcript analysis. The accessible methods describe one aquarium per concentration and do not report independently replicated treatment vessels or random allocation. At least five RT-PCR pools were made from 50 animals, so animals within a pool were not independent transcript replicates.

Endpoints: preliminary one-day mortality, expressed sequence tags, semi-quantitative transcript abundance.

Claim boundary

What it can support: After one day, 14 selected transcripts differed from the solvent control under at least one nominal nonylphenol treatment, with most reported responses being downregulation. This establishes a short-term pooled whole-animal transcriptional response under the tested laboratory protocol.

What it cannot support: Concentrations were nominal and not analytically verified. Independent exposure-vessel replication was not reported, whole animals were pooled, and no multiplicity correction was described across genes and concentrations. The abstract says six transcripts responded at 0.01 mg/L while the results text says five, and a figure labels the comparator PBS-treated even though the methods describe a DMSO solvent control. A one-day mRNA change does not establish protein abundance, functional impairment, chronic harm, recovery, behaviour, disease, reproduction, an aquarium threshold, a household product diagnosis or a biomarker protocol.

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 (2)

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

  • 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.
  • chemical-safety 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 (10)

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

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.