Frogs have layers: A comparative histological study of color polymorphism in Oophaga poison frogs


Abstract

Background
Color polymorphism in aposematic species is often associated with ecological divergence and predator selection. In amphibians, coloration is achieved through the chromatophore unit, a layered structure of pigment containing cells (xanthophores, melanophores) and structural cells (iridophores) that interact to produce the final skin coloration. In dendrobatid frogs of the genus Oophaga, striking red and green morphs coexist within and across species, yet the cellular mechanisms underlying this variation remain poorly understood.
Methods
We investigated the histological basis of coloration in three Oophaga species (O. granulifera, O. pumilio, and O. vicentei) by comparing chromatophore layer structure in red and green morphs and correlating these traits with spectrometric color measurements. While all species have a chromatophore unit of xanthophores, iridophores, and melanophores, we observed interspecific and intraspecific variation in the organization, thickness, and density of these layers.
Results
In O. pumilio and O. vicentei, red morphs consistently exhibited greater xanthophore and iridophore coverage and higher xanthophore to melanophore ratios. In contrast, O. granulifera displayed minimal differences between morphs and a more disorganized chromatophore unit, however melanosome size and melanophore density was higher for green morphs. Spectral reflectance measurements correlated significantly with chromatophore traits, supporting a link between skin histology and color phenotype. These findings suggest that coloration in Oophaga arises from less conserved chromatophore unit structure, reflecting diverse evolutionary routes to equivalent coloration.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].