Open this record in the complete research map
Neocaridina denticulata: A Decapod Crustacean Model for Functional Genomics
Mykles and Hui, 2015. Integrative and Comparative Biology 55(5): 891-897.
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
- Policy review comparing Neocaridina denticulata with the crayfish Procambarus clarkii and Cherax quadricarinatus, with additional inferences from other crustacean models
- Environment
- No new animal experiment or culture trial; narrative synthesis and recommendation arising from a 2015 comparative Pancrustacea symposium workshop
- Life stages
- embryo and fertilized egg discussed from cited sources, juvenile and reproductive maturity discussed from cited sources, adult anatomy and culture discussed from cited sources
- Reviewed
- 2026-08-12
What was studied
Study shape: The authors defined desired traits for a decapod model, compared three freshwater candidates, summarized selected Neocaridina life-history, culture, anatomy and genomic claims from earlier publications, recommended N. denticulata, and proposed obtaining a complete genome and developing tissue-specific gene-control and mutant-screening methods.
Experimental unit: Published source or narrative claim; the paper reported no new animals, aquaria, assigned treatments, measurements or statistical analysis and did not describe a systematic search, eligibility criteria or risk-of-bias assessment.
Endpoints: model-organism selection criteria, comparative recommendation, summary of cited life-history and culture claims, summary of draft-genome status, proposed functional-genomics next steps.
Claim boundary
What it can support: The paper documents that two authors recommended N. denticulata as a decapod functional-genomics model in 2015 based on its small space requirement, commercial availability, transparent cuticle, cited life-history traits and then-available preliminary genome. It explicitly identified a complete genome and reliable gene-expression manipulation as future work.
What it cannot support: This policy review is not a new replication of any cited experiment and is not a systematic review. Its pH 6.5 to 8.0, temperature up to 30 C, preferred 22 to 25 C and pH 7.0 to 7.5, 15 to 16 day intermolt, 20 to 30 egg, approximately 30 day hatch and 4 to 6 month maturity statements combine older sources, populations and methods; they are not one standardized aquarium comparison or validated species-wide optimum. The broad statement that N. denticulata is resistant to bacterial infection does not establish general disease resistance, a pathogen-free line, treatment or immune supplement. The cited DPrP bacterial-challenge paper remains full-text-needed in this registry, and the companion crayfish-plague citation studied a related published species against one oomycete pathogen. The preliminary genome was explicitly incomplete, and proposed transgenesis, reporter expression, mutation screening and targeted gene control were future possibilities rather than demonstrated Neocaridina methods in this paper. The review does not validate a care range, breeding calendar, stocking rule, disease guarantee, commercial-line assay or consumer genetic intervention.
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 (14)
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. - 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. - 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. - growth 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. - molting 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. - parameters 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. - breeding 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. - growth 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. - molting practical guide Practical guide
The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary. - parameters 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 (28)
This surface derives from a governing registry and should update with it, but release tests must still prove parity and routing.
- Record CSL-JSON citation Citation export
The record citation export derives its note and source metadata from the evidence registry. - Record RIS citation Citation export
The record citation export derives its note and source metadata from the evidence registry. - Complete CSL-JSON bibliography Citation export
The complete citation export includes every evidence registry record. - Complete RIS bibliography Citation export
The complete citation export includes every evidence registry record. - anatomy portable decision card Generated decision-card text
The portable text derives from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section and both permanent links. - breeding portable decision card Generated decision-card text
The portable text derives from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section and both permanent links. - genetics portable decision card Generated decision-card text
The portable text derives from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section and both permanent links. - growth portable decision card Generated decision-card text
The portable text derives from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section and both permanent links. - health portable decision card Generated decision-card text
The portable text derives from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section and both permanent links. - molting portable decision card Generated decision-card text
The portable text derives from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section and both permanent links. - parameters portable decision card Generated decision-card text
The portable text derives from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section and both permanent links. - anatomy complete visual decision card Generated decision-card visual
The typography-only visual and exact accessibility description derive from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section. - breeding complete visual decision card Generated decision-card visual
The typography-only visual and exact accessibility description derive from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section. - genetics complete visual decision card Generated decision-card visual
The typography-only visual and exact accessibility description derive from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section. - growth complete visual decision card Generated decision-card visual
The typography-only visual and exact accessibility description derive from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section. - health complete visual decision card Generated decision-card visual
The typography-only visual and exact accessibility description derive from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section. - molting complete visual decision card Generated decision-card visual
The typography-only visual and exact accessibility description derive from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section. - parameters complete visual decision card Generated decision-card visual
The typography-only visual and exact accessibility description derive from the curated decision-card registry and must preserve every card section. - Neocaridina denticulata: A Decapod Crustacean Model for Functional Genomics Canonical evidence page
The canonical evidence page derives from the current evidence registry record. - anatomy evidence dossier Generated guide dossier
The dossier derives its linked evidence set from the record care path. - breeding evidence dossier Generated guide dossier
The dossier derives its linked evidence set from the record care path. - genetics evidence dossier Generated guide dossier
The dossier derives its linked evidence set from the record care path. - growth evidence dossier Generated guide dossier
The dossier derives its linked evidence set from the record care path. - health evidence dossier Generated guide dossier
The dossier derives its linked evidence set from the record care path. - molting evidence dossier Generated guide dossier
The dossier derives its linked evidence set from the record care path. - parameters evidence dossier Generated guide dossier
The dossier derives its linked evidence set from the record care path. - Machine-readable knowledge export Machine-readable knowledge export
The versioned export includes the complete evidence registry and source-integrity audit. - Research map record Research map
The research map derives its source boundary from the evidence registry.
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.
- A model-organism recommendation is not a care standard Historical research change
The historical change cites this source. Preserve the old decision and decide whether a new public correction is required.
How this record is classified
Review or synthesis: A source assembled findings and gaps across studies. It is useful for scope, but is not a new direct species experiment.
Broader ornamental-shrimp review: The source reviews several ornamental-shrimp taxa and may include Neocaridina literature.
Topics: Genetics, Breeding, Growth and lifespan, Molting, Anatomy, Health, Temperature, Water parameters
Critically appraise this source without a score
These questions fit this record's review or synthesis role. They are prompts, not automatic judgments. Open the original source to answer them.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Search and selection: Were search sources, dates, queries, eligibility decisions and excluded material reported? An unsystematic source set can omit contrary or newer evidence.
- Source roles: Are primary experiments, field studies, reviews and expert assertions kept distinguishable? Repeated citation through reviews does not create new independent evidence.
- Included-study appraisal: Were the units, methods, limitations and conflicts of included sources critically appraised? A synthesis inherits limitations when it only counts or repeats conclusions.
- Currency: What was the search end date, and could later taxonomy, corrections or studies change the synthesis? A well-conducted review can become stale without becoming fraudulent.
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.