deletions | additions       diff --git a/Results Taxonomic Diversity Across Dietary Patterns.md b/Results Taxonomic Diversity Across Dietary Patterns.md  index 6530b8a..d1df921 100644  --- a/Results Taxonomic Diversity Across Dietary Patterns.md  +++ b/Results Taxonomic Diversity Across Dietary Patterns.md 
...
##Sequence Processing and Summary Statistics  The number of high-quality sequences per meal (SAMPLE?)  ranged from 168,669-318,956. After OTU assignment, assignment (EXPLAIN THIS HERE),  mitochondrial and chloroplast sequences were filtered out, and sequences that were observed only once (globally) (WHAT DOES GLOBALLY MEAN HERE?_  were removed. After filtration, filtration (DOES THIS REFER TO THE MITO AND CPST STEP?),  the range of sequences per sample decreased to 771-244,597. All subsequent diversity analyses were performed on samples that were rarefied to 771 sequences per sample. sample (THIS SEEMS A BIT CRAZY - WHY LET ONE SAMPLE DRIVE THE NUMBER OF SEQUENCES USED SO MUCH?).  ##Taxonomic Composition and Diversity of the Different Dietary Patterns  In terms of taxonomic richness (both measured by number of OTUs and phylogenetic diversity,) there was no significant difference between diet types (Fig) (non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test with compare\_alpha\_diversity.py, P>0.6). We also tested for the significant variation in frequency of individual OTUs between diet types using the Kruskal-Wallis test (WHY USE THIS SPECIFIC TEST?)  as implemented in the group_significance.py script. None of the OTUs were significantly different between the three diet types.