PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Bruce E. Deagle AU - Austen C. Thomas AU - Julie C. McInnes AU - Laurence J. Clarket AU - Eero J. Vesterinen AU - Elizabeth L. Clare AU - Tyler R. Kartzinel AU - J. Paige Eveson TI - Counting with DNA in metabarcoding studies: how should we convert sequence reads to dietary data? AID - 10.1101/303461 DP - 2018 Jan 01 TA - bioRxiv PG - 303461 4099 - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/04/18/303461.short 4100 - http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/04/18/303461.full AB - Advances in DNA sequencing technology have revolutionised the field of molecular analysis of trophic interactions and it is now possible to recover counts of food DNA barcode sequences from a wide range of dietary samples. But what do these counts mean? To obtain an accurate estimate of a consumer’s diet should we work strictly with datasets summarising the frequency of occurrence of different food taxa, or is it possible to use the relative number of sequences? Both approaches are applied in the dietary metabarcoding literature, but occurrence data is often promoted as a more conservative and reliable option due to taxa-specific biases in recovery of sequences. Here, we point out that diet summaries based on occurrence data overestimate the importance of food consumed in small quantities (potentially including low-level contaminants) and are sensitive to the count threshold used to define an occurrence. Our simulations indicate that even with recovery biases incorporated, using relative read abundance (RRA) information can provide a more accurate view of population-level diet in many scenarios. The ideas presented here highlight the need to consider all sources of bias and to justify the methods used to interpret count data in dietary metabarcoding studies. We encourage researchers to continue to addressing methodological challenges, and acknowledge unanswered questions to help spur future investigations in this rapidly developing area of research.