The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

System observation or method study Direct Neocaridina evidence

Comparative transcriptomic analysis primarily explores the molecular mechanism of compound eye formation in Neocaridina denticulata sinensis

Yan et al., 2024. BMC Genomics 25: 570.

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
Baiyangdian Lake Neocaridina denticulata sinensis; identification method not reported
Environment
Field-collected adults reared in an indoor recirculating aquaculture system with aeration; temperature, water chemistry, photoperiod, feed and spawning dates were not reported
Life stages
nauplius-stage embryo, compound eye pigment formation I embryo, compound eye pigment formation II embryo, zoea-stage embryo within the egg membrane
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Embryos were assigned by stereomicroscope appearance to four late embryonic stages. Twelve RNA sequencing libraries represented three pooled samples per stage, with about 50 embryos in each sample. Adjacent stages were compared for gene expression and pathway enrichment, and eight selected transcripts were checked by qRT-PCR.

Experimental unit: Pooled RNA sample containing about 50 embryos, with three pools per morphological stage; the number of females or broods contributing to each pool and independence among pools were not reported

Endpoints: stereomicroscope stage assignment, whole-embryo RNA sequencing, differential gene expression, GO and KEGG enrichment, putative eye-development, phototransduction, cuticle and molting-related genes, qRT-PCR expression of eight selected transcripts.

Claim boundary

What it can support: The study operationally separated late embryos by visible eye development, from thin crescent-shaped black pigment at the first compound-eye stage to oval eyes and later zoea-stage morphology. Whole-embryo expression profiles changed across those stages, including higher late-stage expression of putative visual opsins and enrichment of phototransduction and chitin-related terms.

What it cannot support: The paper did not report embryo ages, elapsed time between stages, time to hatch, incubation temperature, water chemistry, photoperiod, brood count, clutch allocation, egg retention, hatch success, survival, deformity or post-hatch outcome. About 50 embryos were pooled per RNA sample, and unknown family contributions prevent treating every embryo as an independent replicate. Stage and maternal history were confounded. Pathway annotation and expression association do not prove that a gene or hormone caused eye formation, molting or hatching; qRT-PCR of eight selected transcripts was assay confirmation rather than an independent biological replication or functional perturbation. The source labels the final in-egg stage zoea, which must be preserved rather than converted into a hobby life-stage rule. Visible eyes therefore do not provide a universal hatch countdown, prove embryo viability or support a light, temperature, medication or handling recommendation.

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.

  • sexing 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.
  • sexing 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, Breeding, Molting

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.