The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Direct Neocaridina evidence

Relationship between ROS production, MnSOD activation and periods of fasting and re-feeding in freshwater shrimp Neocaridina davidi

Włodarczyk et al., 2019. PeerJ 7: e7399.

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
Adult Neocaridina davidi obtained from local shrimp breeders
Environment
Adults were held in one 40-litre laboratory tank at 21 C, pH 7 and 10 dH, then isolated in shaded 250 mL containers with algae suppressed, excrement removed and 10 percent of the water replaced daily
Life stages
adult
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Non-starved controls were compared with adults deprived of feed for 14 days and with groups re-fed for 4, 7 or 14 days after the same deprivation. DHE flow cytometry and confocal imaging assessed reactive-oxygen signals, immunofluorescence assessed MnSOD and a control-tissue western blot checked antibody specificity.

Experimental unit: Shrimp were isolated individually, but Table 1 lists 24 animals per flow-cytometry group and four per confocal method while the statistical section says assays used 5 to 6 samples in duplicate; the animal-to-assay sample mapping and any pooling are not fully reported

Endpoints: percentage of DHE-labelled ROS-positive cells, qualitative tissue DHE signal, qualitative MnSOD immunofluorescence, antibody-specificity western blot.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Under the tested algae-suppressed conditions, 14 days without feed increased the reported mean ROS-positive cell fraction from 2.8 to 13.2 percent in the hepatopancreas and from 1.3 to 12.7 percent in the intestine. Reported values declined toward control levels after 7 to 14 days of re-feeding, alongside weaker MnSOD immunofluorescence.

What it cannot support: The study tested one 14-day deprivation, not a weekly fast, and measured dissected-cell oxidative-stress markers rather than a survival, growth, molting, behaviour, reproduction or longevity benefit. Its isolated 250 mL containers deliberately suppressed algae and do not represent a conditioned community aquarium. Random allocation and blinding were not reported, sex was omitted from the analysis, assay sample mapping is incomplete, MnSOD treatment differences were not quantitatively measured, and the table, figure and statistical-method descriptions make the comparison-letter interpretation ambiguous. It cannot establish that routine fasting is beneficial, that missing one normal feeding is harmful, that biofilm is adequate, or that a specific re-feeding schedule is safe.

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.

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: 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.

  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.