Open this record in the complete research map
Autophagy and apoptosis in starved and re-fed Neocaridina davidi (Crustacea, Malacostraca) midgut
Włodarczyk, Student and Rost-Roszkowska, 2019. Canadian Journal of Zoology 97(4): 294-303.
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
- Adult male and female Neocaridina davidi obtained from local shrimp breeders
- Environment
- Adults came from one 40-litre laboratory tank at 21 C, pH 7 and printed total hardness of 10 degrees d, then were isolated in shaded 250 mL containers with algae suppressed, excrement and exuviae removed and 10 percent of the water replaced daily
- Life stages
- adult
- Reviewed
- 2026-08-12
What was studied
Study shape: Adults were deprived of feed for 7, 14 or 21 days, and subsets were re-fed for 4, 7 or 14 days. TEM, TUNEL, LysoTracker and caspase-3 methods assessed intestine and hepatopancreas cells. Non-starved reference values and images were imported from a 2016 paper rather than produced as a concurrent control group.
Experimental unit: Shrimp were isolated individually, but Table 1 lists 10 TEM animals and 8 animals for each confocal method in most groups while quantitative Tables 2 and 3 report n = 5; animal reuse, pooling and the cell-to-animal analysis hierarchy are not resolved
Endpoints: midgut cell ultrastructure, autophagosome-bearing cell percentage, TUNEL-labelled cell percentage, qualitative LysoTracker signal, qualitative caspase-3 signal, unquantified mortality during 21-day deprivation.
Claim boundary
What it can support: Within this linked laboratory series, 7 and 14 days without feed were associated with more reported autophagosome-bearing midgut cells, and tissue descriptions after 14 days included fewer organelles and less reserve material. After re-feeding, qualitative tissue structure and the reported cellular markers moved toward the earlier non-starved reference.
What it cannot support: This paper reused the prior experimental procedure and imported its non-starved controls, so it is not independent replication and does not provide a concurrent baseline. Most animals deprived for 21 days reportedly died, but mortality counts, timing and survival analysis were absent; the paper says that group was not quantitatively analyzed even though Table 1 lists post-21-day TEM specimens. Re-feeding food amount, frequency and intake were not reported. Table 1 animal counts conflict with the n = 5 quantitative tables, the nested cell and animal hierarchy is unclear, random allocation and blinding were not reported, and the t tests omit comparison pairs, assumptions, exact p values and multiplicity handling. Table 3 prints zero means with positive standard deviations for nonnegative percentages, which is internally impossible. Caspase-3 and LysoTracker results were qualitative, marker validation was limited, and the TUNEL threshold was described as arbitrary. The study measured no growth, molting, behaviour, reproduction, longevity or whole-animal recovery and cannot establish a routine fast, safe missed-feeding interval, re-feeding recipe, home diagnosis or health benefit.
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. - feeding 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. - anatomy practical guide Practical guide
The guide uses this evidence record and its practical wording must remain inside the revised source boundary. - feeding 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.
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.
- 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. - feeding 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. - 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. - feeding 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. - Autophagy and apoptosis in starved and re-fed Neocaridina davidi (Crustacea, Malacostraca) midgut 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. - feeding 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. - 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.
- Cellular recovery is not a re-feeding recipe 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
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: Feeding, Anatomy, Health
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.
- 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.
- Treatment assignment: Were independent units assigned to treatments, and were baseline conditions comparable? Unclear allocation or baseline imbalance can confound the treatment comparison.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.