The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

System observation or method study Direct Neocaridina evidence

Enhancing Histological Techniques for Small Crustaceans: Evaluation of Fixation, Decalcification, and Enzymatic Digestion in Neocaridina Shrimp

Wild et al., 2025. Animals 15(12): 1715.

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 genus, cherry-red breeder line without species-level identification
Environment
Post-mortem laboratory histology comparison after rearing in three 24 L nursery tanks
Life stages
approximately 240-day-old intermolt shrimp about 15 mm long
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Sixty euthanized shrimp were divided across 12 fixation and processing variants, implying five individuals per variant and confirmed as n = 5 for nucleus-area results. Neutral-buffered formalin, Bouin fluid and Davidson fluid were compared alone and after trypsin digestion, hydrochloric-acid decalcification or abdomen removal before fixation and decalcification.

Experimental unit: Individual post-mortem specimen within a five-shrimp processing variant; five slides with three sections each and 150 measured muscle nuclei per specimen were subsamples, not additional independent animals

Endpoints: section fragility and tearing, subjective fixation, autolysis and staining scores, muscle-cell nucleus area, digital RGB staining measurements, hepatopancreas, ventral nerve cord and muscle preservation.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Histological appearance in Neocaridina specimens depends strongly on fixation and processing. Davidson fluid gave the best unmodified preservation among the three tested fixatives, while trypsin and acid decalcification could add tissue damage, autolysis or staining artifacts; abdomen removal followed by Davidson fixation and decalcification scored best overall in this laboratory comparison.

What it cannot support: This was a post-mortem laboratory method study, not a live-animal health, diagnosis, treatment or husbandry experiment. The source identified animals only to genus and used one breeder line, did not report sex, random allocation, assessor blinding, inter-rater agreement or tank-to-treatment balance, and used only five animals per variant. Multiple sections, nuclei and pixels are specimen subsamples. Subjective score sums were reported without uncertainty, and one-way ANOVA with Fisher NIR post hoc testing does not remove small-group or multiplicity concerns. Autolysis and altered staining can be preparation artifacts rather than evidence of illness before death. The chemicals and dissection steps are hazardous laboratory procedures, and the reported 40 mg/L MS222 method lacks time-to-death, confirmation and buffering details, so it is not a validated home euthanasia 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.

  • 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.
  • anatomy 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.

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.

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

Topics: Anatomy, Health

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.