ArticleMolecular biology reports2026
Genetic diversity patterns across habitats and forms of a morphologically cryptic South Asian frog (Sphaerotheca maskeyi).
Article in Molecular biology reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSphaerotheca maskeyi (Dicroglossidae) is a medium-sized South Asian frog. It is of conservation concern due to its global declining population trend. This study aimed to (1) determine the phylogenetic placement of S. maskeyi, (2) assess genetic variation across contrasting habitat types (natural vs. degraded), and (3) compare genetic diversity between two distinct morphotypes (dotted and rusty forms) by using mitochondrial (16 S rRNA) and nuclear (RAG-1) gene markers. METHODS AND
resultsPhylogenetic analyses using both Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian inference consistently placed all sampled individuals within the Sphaerotheca maskeyi clade, clearly distinct from its congeners. Comparisons of genetic diversity between habitat types revealed that populations from natural habitats showed numerically higher but statistically non-significant values for both mitochondrial and nuclear markers (16 S: Hd = 0.963, π = 0.063; RAG-1: Hd = 0.9818, π = 0.0237) than those from degraded habitats (16 S: Hd = 0.760, π = 0.054; RAG-1: Hd = 0.9556, π = 0.0175). Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) for both loci indicated that most genetic variation was partitioned within populations rather than among them. Similarly, comparisons between morphotypes showed that the rusty form exhibited numerically higher but statistically non-significant nucleotide diversity for both genes (16 S rRNA: Hd = 0.222, π = 0.00210; RAG-1: Hd = 1.000, π = 0.01258) than the dotted form (16 S rRNA: Hd = 1.000, π = 0.00059; RAG-1: Hd = 0.933, π = 0.00517). AMOVA indicated moderate but marginal and statistically non-significant genetic differentiation between the two morphotypes (FST = 0.09057, p = 0.058), suggesting weak genetic structuring and providing no strong evidence for pronounced genetic divergence between the two forms.
conclusionFrogs from natural habitats and of the rusty morphotype showed higher but statistically non-significant genetic diversity, with most variation occurring within populations and only weak, non-significant genetic structuring between morphotypes, indicating no strong genetic divergence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42730989What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.