ArticleJournal of microbiology & biology education2026
A zebrafish module for genetic problem-solving.
Article in Journal of microbiology & biology education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Teaching Mendelian genetics through problem-solving remains a challenge as students often struggle to connect foundational rules with the open-ended reasoning required for experimental design. To bridge this gap, we developed a 3-week, problem-based laboratory module for a large undergraduate course (~180 students) using wild-type zebrafish and three pigmentation mutants (nacre, roy, and casper) to guide students stepwise from observation to genetic inference. The module unfolds iteratively: students first learn rigorous phenotypic discrimination and data collection. They then receive a cross of unknown parental genotypes, quantify progeny ratios, formulate testable hypotheses, and use chi-square analysis to initially evaluate their model for one of the two genes. A core innovation is requiring students to design a definitive follow-up cross to resolve remaining allelic ambiguities, making experimental design an explicit objective. Finally, students analyze the results of their proposed test cross, performing a final chi-square test on the complete two-gene system. This module integrates core concepts: two-gene Mendelian inheritance, statistical analysis, and hypothesis-driven design into a cohesive investigative experience. This module allowed students to practice formulating their hypothesis and experimental design. Based on survey responses, most students (~72%) agreed that they learned to apply genetic concepts in the laboratory module.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.