Background
A central challenge of DNA gut content analysis is to identify prey in a highly degraded DNA community. In this study, we evaluated prey detection using metabarcoding and a method of mapping unassembled shotgun reads (Lazaro).
Conclusions
Metabarcoding and Lazaro had similar, but partially complementary, detection of prey in arthropod predator guts. However, while Lazaro was almost 2× more expensive, the number of reads was related to the amount of prey DNA, suggesting that Lazaro may provide quantitative prey information while metabarcoding did not.
Results
In a mock prey community, metabarcoding did not detect any prey, probably owing to primer choice and/or preferential predator DNA amplification, while Lazaro detected prey with accuracy 43-71%. Gut content analysis of field-collected arthropod epigeal predators (3 ants, 1 dermapteran, and 1 carabid) from agricultural habitats in Brazil (27 samples, 46-273 individuals per sample) revealed that 64% of the prey species detections by either method were not confirmed by melting curve analysis and 87% of the true prey were detected in common. We hypothesized that Lazaro would detect fewer true- and false-positive and more false-negative prey with greater taxonomic resolution than metabarcoding but found that the methods were similar in sensitivity, specificity, false discovery rate, false omission rate, and accuracy. There was a positive correlation between the relative prey DNA concentration in the samples and the number of prey reads detected by Lazaro, while this was inconsistent for metabarcoding. Conclusions: Metabarcoding and Lazaro had similar, but partially complementary, detection of prey in arthropod predator guts. However, while Lazaro was almost 2× more expensive, the number of reads was related to the amount of prey DNA, suggesting that Lazaro may provide quantitative prey information while metabarcoding did not.