methylEZ : A Graphical User Interface for differential methylation analysis in BS-seq data


Abstract

Background: High-throughput bisulfite sequencing (BS-seq), including whole-genome (WGBS) and reduced representation (RRBS), provides base-resolution DNA methylation. Despite mature command-line (CLI) workflows for alignment, methylation calling, and downstream analysis, many researchers without CLI experience face steep setup and reproducibility barriers. Existing GUIs often target array data or late-stage visualization and rarely assist with containerized, sequencing-oriented workflows that must run locally or on HPC.

Methods: We present methylEZ, an open-source, cross-platform, Python/Tkinter GUI that streamlines preparation of BS-seq analyses while preserving transparent, script-first execution. The application is organized in three modules: (1) preprocessing: FASTQ selection, read-pairing, and generation of validated samplesheets and ready-to-run commands for the nf-core/methylseq pipeline; (2) quality control assistance: automation of common asset preparation (reference indexing/dictionaries, BED to Picard interval_list conversion, BAM sorting/indexing) and batch scripts to drive Picard tools (e.g., CollectHsMetrics for capture designs) and samtools; and (3) downstream analysis templating: export of a parameterizable methylKit R script supporting coverage filters, DMS/DMR detection (with optional tiling), basic plots, and annotation. All artifacts (CLI strings, configs, and R scripts) are saved for inspection, version control, and reuse.

Results: We validated methylEZ on in-house methyl-capture BS-seq data. The GUI correctly produced nf-core/methylseq samplesheets and Nextflow commands, and the QC module batched reference/BAM preparations and coverage summaries via scripted Picard/samtools steps, reducing repetitive CLI interaction. The exported methylKit templates executed without error and generated interpretable differential methylation outputs and plots. methylEZ runs on macOS, Windows, and Linux; it is installable via pip from GitHub and requires Python 3; Tkinter is bundled on Windows/macOS and typically available via the Tk package on Linux.

Conclusions: methylEZ lowers the entry barrier to reproducible BS-seq by moving error-prone configuration and QC setup into a guided GUI while keeping execution explicit and auditable through exported commands and scripts. The tool complements web platforms (e.g., Galaxy) by emphasizing local/offline control and compatibility with community workflows (nf-core/methylseq) and statistical packages (methylKit). Planned extensions include in-GUI visualization (e.g., PCA, coverage histograms, volcano plots) and support for alternative methylation callers and statistical frameworks. methylEZ is released under GPL-3.0 at https://github.com/AlejRSosa/methylEZ

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].