Back

MethylBench: A comprehensive benchmark of DNA methylation profiling methods across diverse sequencing platforms

Laufer, L.; Gasparoni, G.; Hentrich, T.; Sofan, L.; Admard, J.; Buena-Atienza, E.; Pogoda, M.; Ossowski, S.; Casadei, N.; Riess, O.; Haack, T.; Buchert, R.; Schulze-Hentrich, J.

2026-04-30 genomics
10.64898/2026.04.28.721268 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDNA methylation can be profiled using multiple technologies that vary in resolution, coverage and cost. Yet systematic benchmarks across these methods remain scarce. MethodsWe compared six widely used technologies -- Illumina EPIC array, TWIST, Whole-Genome Enzymatic Conversion (WGEC), Reduced Representation Bisulfite Sequencing (RRBS), long-read genome sequencing (LR-GS) with Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) -- using Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) reference samples and ten samples derived of blood and fibroblast cultures of 5 individuals. We assessed CpG coverage, consistency of differentially methylated cytosine (DMC) detection and genomic annotation, with particular attention to overlapping signals across assays. ResultsDespite major differences in assay design, all technologies consistently identified DMCs enriched in promoter and intronic regions, highlighting these loci as robust hotspots of epigenetic variability. Annotation redundancy strongly influenced initial interpretations, with CpG island-related categories largely disappearing once annotations were collapsed to unique features. Sequencing-based methods (WGEC, TWIST, ONT) achieved the most comprehensive coverage, whereas EPIC arrays reproducibly captured promoter-associated differences despite limited scope. ONT sequencing enabled direct, long-read-based methylation profiling with phasing capability and showed strong concordance with short-read sequencing methods after coverage filtering, but required higher and more uniform coverage to achieve reproducible CpG-level agreement. PacBio methylation profiles showed a coverage-dependent discrepancy, with cross-platform concordance plateauing in GIAB samples despite high mean coverage, indicating residual technology-specific biases beyond simple coverage effects. ConclusionsCross-platform benchmarking yields coherent biological insights when coverage and annotation redundancies are carefully addressed. Practically, EPIC arrays remain valuable for promoter-focused cohort studies, WGEC and TWIST enable genome-wide discovery and ONT provides unique phasing and multimodal potential. This comparative framework can guide method selection and support more robust interpretation of DNA methylation data across diverse platforms.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.3%
2
Epigenetics
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
3
Clinical Epigenetics
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
4
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 3%
7.3%
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 28%
6.5%
6
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.5%
7
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.4%
9
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.7%
10
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 34%
3.7%
11
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
12
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.8%
13
Bioinformatics Advances
184 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
14
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
15
Epigenetics & Chromatin
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
Nature Biotechnology
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
17
GigaScience
172 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
18
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
19
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
214 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
20
Alzheimer's & Dementia
143 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
21
Nature Methods
336 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
22
Genome Research
409 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
23
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
24
Cell Reports Methods
141 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
25
Cell Genomics
162 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
26
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
27
BMC Medical Genomics
36 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
28
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
29
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
30
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.5%