The Berried Clubby Molt & Moss
Menu

Open this record in the complete research map

Controlled experiment Neocaridina identity evidence

Role Analysis of the scarb1 Gene in the Pigmentation of Neocaridina denticulata sinensis

Zhang et al., 2025. Animals 15(7): 901.

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
Laboratory red, yellow, blue and wild Neocaridina denticulata sinensis populations
Environment
Laboratory culture at 25 +/- 1 C followed by removed-embryo RNA interference, expression assays and targeted genotyping
Life stages
embryo, juvenile offspring, adult source populations
Reviewed
2026-08-12

What was studied

Study shape: Scarb1 expression was compared across four selected colour populations and five developmental stages; five maternal clutches were split between scarb1 and EGFP dsRNA exposure, and one candidate SNP from a 216-shrimp transcriptome was targeted in four planned 384-animal population samples.

Experimental unit: Individual or biological sample for expression, maternal clutch for the paired RNAi comparison and individual shrimp for genotyping; source-population tank replication was not resolved

Endpoints: scarb1 expression, red pixel brightness ratio, pigment distribution scale, chromatophore development, G1593A genotype and allele frequency.

Claim boundary

What it can support: Scarb1 knockdown changed metanauplius chromatophore measurements under the source protocol, and the synonymous G1593A genotype distribution differed sharply in the sampled yellow population.

What it cannot support: The RNAi used removed embryos from five mothers, did not report the statistical method for most comparisons and did not function at the later pre-zoea stage. The table reports 345 rather than the planned 384 genotypes per population without explaining missing calls. A selected-population association without crosses, independent line validation, phenotype prediction or a causal variant test cannot identify Sunkist or another named commercial line, establish dominance or forecast offspring.

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.

  • colours 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.
  • Visible colour can change without proving inherited identity Curated evidence comparison
    The bounded reconciliation and unresolved question use this record in an explicit comparison.
  • colours 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.
  • round1-taxonomy-lineage Curated first-round reviewer assignment
    The frozen reviewer scope or consequential-failure check uses this record through the assigned claim trace or comparison and must be reconsidered before invitation or response.

Generated from governing registry (13)

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.

Neocaridina identity evidence: The source addresses identity, relationships or genetics within the Neocaridina complex.

Topics: Colour, Genetics, Breeding

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

Where this result is compared

These governed comparisons show why this record can appear to conflict with another result without electing a winner or hiding unresolved uncertainty.

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.