Search
2026 Volume 19
Article Contents
MINI REVIEW   Open Access    

Advantages of Oxford Nanopore Technologies direct DNA/RNA sequencing for epigenetic profiling over traditional technologies

  • # Authors contributed equally: Zhihui Lu, Hanxue Zhang

More Information
  • Received: 27 August 2025
    Revised: 11 November 2025
    Accepted: 22 December 2025
    Published online: 02 February 2026
    Epigenetics Insights  19 Article number: e003 (2026)  |  Cite this article
  • Epigenetic regulation—orchestrated by DNA methylation, histone modifications, non-coding RNAs, and emerging RNA base modifications—dictates gene expression, cell identity, and environmental responses. Yet, conventional methods like bisulfite sequencing and ChIP-seq impose critical limitations: they require harsh chemical treatments (e.g., bisulfite conversion) or artificial cross-linking that distort in vivo epigenetic states, obscure dynamic modifications, and sacrifice strand specificity. Here, Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) direct sequencing is advocated as a transformative solution. By enabling native, amplification-free interrogation of DNA and RNA with ultra-long reads and real-time analysis, ONT uniquely captures the epigenome in near-physiological condition. It directly detects diverse base modifications—including 5 mC, 5 hmC, m6A, and pseudouridine, etc.—without engineered antibodies or destructive chemistry, while preserving critical strand orientation and phasing adjacent marks. Crucially, the present comparative analysis confirms ONT’s superior accuracy for modified base calling, enhanced sensitivity to low-abundance epigenetic variants, and unparalleled scalability for multi-omic integration. This fidelity to native molecular states positions ONT to redefine epigenetic research across basic, translational, and applied biology, establishing a new paradigm for resolving dynamic epigenetic landscapes in health and disease, as well as crop adaptation to internal/external cues.
  • 加载中
  • [1] McCutcheon SR, Rohm D, Iglesias N, Gersbach CA. 2024. Epigenome editing technologies for discovery and medicine. Nature Biotechnology 42(8):1199−1217 doi: 10.1038/s41587-024-02320-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [2] Jones PA, Baylin SB. 2002. The fundamental role of epigenetic events in cancer. Nature Reviews Genetics 3(6):415−428 doi: 10.1038/nrg816

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3] Song X, Tang S, Liu H, Meng Y, Luo H, et al. 2025. Inheritance of acquired adaptive cold tolerance in rice through DNA methylation. Cell 188(16):4213−4224.e12 doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.04.036

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [4] Dai W, Qiao X, Fang Y, Guo R, Bai P, et al. 2024. Epigenetics-targeted drugs: current paradigms and future challenges. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 9:332 doi: 10.1038/s41392-024-02039-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5] Xue Y, Cao X, Chen X, Deng X, Deng XW, et al. 2025. Epigenetics in the modern era of crop improvements. Science China Life Sciences 68(6):1570−1609 doi: 10.1007/s11427-024-2784-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [6] Miura F, Enomoto Y, Dairiki R, Ito T. 2012. Amplification-free whole-genome bisulfite sequencing by post-bisulfite adaptor tagging. Nucleic Acids Research 40(17):e136 doi: 10.1093/nar/gks454

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7] Kresse SH, Thorkildsen EM, Brandt-Winge S, Pharo H, Vedeld HM, et al. 2025. Comparison of enzymatic and bisulfite conversion of circulating cell-free tumor DNA for DNA methylation analyses. Clinical Epigenetics 17(1):93 doi: 10.1186/s13148-025-01901-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8] Frommer M, McDonald LE, Millar DS, Collis CM, Watt F, et al. 1992. A genomic sequencing protocol that yields a positive display of 5-methylcytosine residues in individual DNA strands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 89(5):1827−1831 doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.5.1827

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [9] Kriaucionis S, Heintz N. 2009. The Nuclear DNA Base 5-Hydroxymethylcytosine Is Present in Purkinje Neurons and the Brain. Science 324:929−930 doi: 10.1126/science.1169786

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10] de Abreu AR, Ibrahim J, Lemonidis V, Mateiu L, Van Camp G, et al. 2025. Comparison of current methods for genome-wide DNA methylation profiling. Epigenetics & Chromatin 18:57 doi: 10.1186/s13072-025-00616-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [11] Zeng L, Zhang B. 2023. Exploring the genomic landscape: an in-depth ChIP-seq analysis protocol for uncovering protein-DNA interactions. Current Protocols 3(10):e909 doi: 10.1002/cpz1.909

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [12] Busby M, Xue C, Li C, Farjoun Y, Gienger E, et al. 2016. Systematic comparison of monoclonal versus polyclonal antibodies for mapping histone modifications by ChIP-seq. Epigenetics & Chromatin 9:49 doi: 10.1186/s13072-016-0100-6

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13] Park PJ. 2009. ChIP–seq: advantages and challenges of a maturing technology. Nature Reviews Genetics 10(10):669−680 doi: 10.1038/nrg2641

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14] Meissner A, Mikkelsen TS, Gu H, Wernig M, Hanna J, et al. 2008. Genome-scale DNA methylation maps of pluripotent and differentiated cells. Nature 454(7205):766−770 doi: 10.1038/nature07107

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15] Guo Z, Shafik AM, Jin P, Wu Z, Wu H. 2021. Detecting m6A methylation regions from Methylated RNA Immunoprecipitation Sequencing. Bioinformatics 37(18):2818−2824 doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab181

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16] Xie S, Leung AW, Zheng Z, Zhang D, Xiao C, et al. 2021. Applications and potentials of nanopore sequencing in the (epi)genome and (epi)transcriptome era. The Innovation 2(4):100153 doi: 10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100153

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [17] Liu T, Conesa A. 2025. Profiling the epigenome using long-read sequencing. Nature Genetics 57(1):27−41 doi: 10.1038/s41588-024-02038-5

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [18] Zhang S, Li R, Zhang L, Chen S, Xie M, et al. 2020. New insights into Arabidopsis transcriptome complexity revealed by direct sequencing of native RNAs. Nucleic Acids Research 48(14):7700−7711 doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa588

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19] Halliwell DO, Honig F, Bagby S, Roy S, Murrell A. 2025. Double and single stranded detection of 5-methylcytosine and 5-hydroxymethylcytosine with nanopore sequencing. Communications Biology 8:243 doi: 10.1038/s42003-025-07681-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [20] Bagci H, Fisher AG. 2013. DNA demethylation in pluripotency and reprogramming: the role of Tet proteins and cell division. Cell Stem Cell 13(3):265−269 doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2013.08.005

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21] Akbari V, Garant JM, O’Neill K, Pandoh P, Moore R, et al. 2022. Genome-wide detection of imprinted differentially methylated regions using nanopore sequencing. eLife 11:e77898 doi: 10.7554/eLife.77898

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22] Naish M, Alonge M, Wlodzimierz P, Tock AJ, Abramson BW, et al. 2021. The genetic and epigenetic landscape of the Arabidopsis centromeres. Science 374(6569):eabi7489 doi: 10.1126/science.abi7489

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23] Weng Z, Ruan F, Chen W, Chen Z, Xie Y, et al. 2023. BIND&MODIFY: a long-range method for single-molecule mapping of chromatin modifications in eukaryotes. Genome Biology 24(1):61 doi: 10.1186/s13059-023-02896-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24] Yue X, Xie Z, Li M, Wang K, Li X, et al. 2022. Simultaneous profiling of histone modifications and DNA methylation via nanopore sequencing. Nature Communications 13:7939 doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35650-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25] Tørresen OK, Star B, Mier P, Andrade-Navarro MA, Bateman A, et al. 2019. Tandem repeats lead to sequence assembly errors and impose multi-level challenges for genome and protein databases. Nucleic Acids Research 47(21):10994−11006 doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz841

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [26] Su X, Lin Q, Liu B, Zhou C, Lu L, et al. 2025. The promising role of nanopore sequencing in cancer diagnostics and treatment. Cell Insight 4(2):100229 doi: 10.1016/j.cellin.2025.100229

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [27] Zhang Z, Jiang T, Li G, Cao S, Liu Y, et al. 2024. Kled: an ultra-fast and sensitive structural variant detection tool for long-read sequencing data. Briefings in Bioinformatics 25(2):bbae049 doi: 10.1093/bib/bbae049

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28] O’Neill K, Pleasance E, Fan J, Akbari V, Chang G, et al. 2024. Long-read sequencing of an advanced cancer cohort resolves rearrangements, unravels haplotypes, and reveals methylation landscapes. Cell Genomics 4(11):100674 doi: 10.1016/j.xgen.2024.100674

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [29] Margalit S, Tulpová Z, Detinis Zur T, Michaeli Y, Deek J, et al. 2025. Long-read structural and epigenetic profiling of a kidney tumor-matched sample with nanopore sequencing and optical genome mapping. NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 7(1):lqae190 doi: 10.1093/nargab/lqae190

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [30] Lee CN, Fu H, Cardilla A, Zhou W, Deng Y. 2025. Spatial joint profiling of DNA methylome and transcriptome in tissues. Nature 646(8087):1261−1271 doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09478-x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31] Zhang S, Xiao Z, Liu A, Ren D, Chen S, et al. 2025. Salt stress adaptations in soybean involve alterations in pre-mRNA processing. Plant, Cell & Environment 2025:pce.15515 doi: 10.1111/pce.15515

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [32] Leger A, Amaral PP, Pandolfini L, Capitanchik C, Capraro F, et al. 2021. RNA modifications detection by comparative Nanopore direct RNA sequencing. Nature Communications 12:7198 doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27393-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [33] Zou R, Lu Z, Djamei A, Kragler F, Lam HM, et al. 2025. The roles of epigenetics in the interplay between beneficial rhizobacteria and plants. Modern Agriculture 3(1):e70017 doi: 10.1002/moda.70017

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [34] Wang Q, Bao X, Chen S, Zhong H, Liu Y, et al. 2021. AtHDA6 functions as an H3K18ac eraser to maintain pericentromeric CHG methylation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nucleic Acids Research 49(17):9755−9767 doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab706

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35] Greninger AL, Naccache SN, Federman S, Yu G, Mbala P, et al. 2015. Rapid metagenomic identification of viral pathogens in clinical samples by real-time nanopore sequencing analysis. Genome Medicine 7(1):99 doi: 10.1186/s13073-015-0220-9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [36] Gilpatrick T, Lee I, Graham JE, Raimondeau E, Bowen R, et al. 2020. Targeted nanopore sequencing with Cas9-guided adapter ligation. Nature Biotechnology 38(4):433−438 doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0407-5

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [37] Lavoro A, Ricci D, Gattuso G, Longo F, Spoto G, et al. 2025. Recent advances on gene-related DNA methylation in cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment: a clinical perspective. Clinical Epigenetics 17(1):76 doi: 10.1186/s13148-025-01884-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [38] Rada KR, Szakállas N, Barták B, Kalmár A, Takács I, et al. 2025. Abstract 218: long-read nanopore sequencing in pursuit of complete methylation profiling of Hungarian colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Research 85(8_Supplement_1):218 doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2025-218

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [39] Grigorev K, Nelson TM, Overbey EG, Houerbi N, Kim J, et al. 2024. Direct RNA sequencing of astronaut blood reveals spaceflight-associated m6A increases and hematopoietic transcriptional responses. Nature Communications 15:4950 doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-48929-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [40] Liu Y, Rosikiewicz W, Pan Z, Jillette N, Wang P, et al. 2021. DNA methylation-calling tools for Oxford Nanopore sequencing: a survey and human epigenome-wide evaluation. Genome Biology 22(1):295 doi: 10.1186/s13059-021-02510-z

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [41] Sigurpalsdottir BD, Stefansson OA, Holley G, Beyter D, Zink F, et al. 2024. A comparison of methods for detecting DNA methylation from long-read sequencing of human genomes. Genome Biology 25(1):69 doi: 10.1186/s13059-024-03207-9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [42] Subtelny AO, Eichhorn SW, Chen GR, Sive H, Bartel DP. 2014. Poly(A)-tail profiling reveals an embryonic switch in translational control. Nature 508(7494):66−71 doi: 10.1038/nature13007

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [43] Wang Y, Zhao Y, Bollas A, Wang Y, Au KF. 2021. Nanopore sequencing technology, bioinformatics and applications. Nature Biotechnology 39(11):1348−1365 doi: 10.1038/s41587-021-01108-x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Lu Z, Zhang H, Bai G, Luo M, Zhang S. 2026. Advantages of Oxford Nanopore Technologies direct DNA/RNA sequencing for epigenetic profiling over traditional technologies. Epigenetics Insights 19: e003 doi: 10.48130/epi-0025-0017
    Lu Z, Zhang H, Bai G, Luo M, Zhang S. 2026. Advantages of Oxford Nanopore Technologies direct DNA/RNA sequencing for epigenetic profiling over traditional technologies. Epigenetics Insights 19: e003 doi: 10.48130/epi-0025-0017

Figures(1)  /  Tables(1)

Article Metrics

Article views(737) PDF downloads(140)

MINI REVIEW   Open Access    

Advantages of Oxford Nanopore Technologies direct DNA/RNA sequencing for epigenetic profiling over traditional technologies

Epigenetics Insights  19 Article number: e003  (2026)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Epigenetic regulation—orchestrated by DNA methylation, histone modifications, non-coding RNAs, and emerging RNA base modifications—dictates gene expression, cell identity, and environmental responses. Yet, conventional methods like bisulfite sequencing and ChIP-seq impose critical limitations: they require harsh chemical treatments (e.g., bisulfite conversion) or artificial cross-linking that distort in vivo epigenetic states, obscure dynamic modifications, and sacrifice strand specificity. Here, Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) direct sequencing is advocated as a transformative solution. By enabling native, amplification-free interrogation of DNA and RNA with ultra-long reads and real-time analysis, ONT uniquely captures the epigenome in near-physiological condition. It directly detects diverse base modifications—including 5 mC, 5 hmC, m6A, and pseudouridine, etc.—without engineered antibodies or destructive chemistry, while preserving critical strand orientation and phasing adjacent marks. Crucially, the present comparative analysis confirms ONT’s superior accuracy for modified base calling, enhanced sensitivity to low-abundance epigenetic variants, and unparalleled scalability for multi-omic integration. This fidelity to native molecular states positions ONT to redefine epigenetic research across basic, translational, and applied biology, establishing a new paradigm for resolving dynamic epigenetic landscapes in health and disease, as well as crop adaptation to internal/external cues.

    • The epigenome—encompassing DNA modifications (e.g., 5-methylcytosine), histone variants, non-coding RNAs, and emerging RNA base marks—dynamically regulates gene expression, cellular identity, and environmental responses[1]. Aberrant epigenetic patterns drive diseases ranging from cancer to neurodevelopmental disorders[2], while natural variation underpins critical traits in agriculture[3]. Consequently, high-resolution epigenetic profiling is essential for deciphering biological mechanisms, and advancing therapeutic and agricultural innovation[4,5].

      Critical limitations of current methodologies, however, impede accurate epigenome interrogation. Bisulfite sequencing (WGBS/RRBS), the gold standard for DNA methylation, relies on harsh bisulfite treatment to convert unmethylated cytosines to uracil. This process fragments DNA, destroys sequence context, and prevents recovery of intact molecules—resulting in low genomic coverage, regional biases, and challenges with limited clinical samples[6,7]. Crucially, it cannot distinguish 5 mC from 5 hmC, a key demethylation intermediate[8,9], nor detect non-cytosine modifications like N6-methyladenosine (m6A). Although enzymatic approaches (e.g., EM-Seq) mitigate DNA degradation and reduce input requirements[10], their conversion efficiency remains suboptimal for quantitative accuracy. Chromatin Immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) faces distinct hurdles: its dependence on antibody specificity and empirical optimization of cross-linking/sonication introduces lab-to-lab variability, masks cell-type-specific heterogeneity, and struggles with transient histone marks[1113]. Microarray-based methods (e.g., MeDIP-chip) avoid bisulfite treatment but suffer from probe-dependent resolution limits, preventing discovery of novel modified regions[14], and cannot pinpoint exact modified bases[15]. Collectively, these constraints obscure native epigenetic states and dynamic processes.

      Emerging as a paradigm-shifting alternative, Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) directly sequences native DNA and RNA by monitoring ionic current changes during molecule translocation through protein nanopores[16]. This approach uniquely preserves endogenous epigenetic modifications without chemical perturbation or cross-linking, generates ultra-long reads for resolving complex genomic architectures, and enables real-time analysis. Here, ONT’s capabilities are systematically evaluated against conventional methods to demonstrate its superior fidelity in capturing the full spectrum of epigenetic information[14,17].

    • Unlike bisulfite sequencing—which irreversibly alters DNA through chemical conversion—Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequences native nucleic acids without modification, enabling direct detection of base modifications via characteristic disruptions in ionic current[1618]. This approach resolves DNA methylation at single-base resolution within individual molecules, eliminating context loss, and preserving intact genomic architecture[16,17]. Critically, ONT distinguishes 5-methylcytosine (5 mC) from 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5 hmC) based on distinct current signatures: 5 mC reduces ionic current, while 5 hmC produces an intermediate signal, allowing unambiguous discrimination of these marks in active demethylation pathways (e.g., mammalian stem cells)[19,20].

      Furthermore, ONT’s long-read capability facilitates allele-specific methylation analysis by spanning full gene loci, promoters, and enhancers in a single read[21,22]. When combined with the BIND&MODIFY protocol, ONT enables simultaneous profiling of histone modifications and DNA methylation at single-molecule resolution. Here, antibodies targeting specific histone marks recruit protein A fused to EcoGII/HIA5 6mA methyltransferases, converting local adenosines to 6mA as a surrogate mark. Subsequent ONT sequencing maps both the original histone modification (via 6mA deposition sites), and native DNA methylation patterns genome-wide[23,24], providing integrated chromatin state insights (Fig. 1).

      Figure 1. 

      A New paradigm shift for epigenetic profiling with ONT DDS/DRS, for simultanoeusly profiling DNA methylation and histone modifications at single molecular level, antibodies against histone modifications and proteinA fused with 6 mA methyltransferase to convert histone modifications to 6 mA marked genomic DNA, then the extracted DNA with BIND&MODIFY treated or without treated native DNA or native RNA can be subjected to library preparation, following sequencing platform (Flongle, MinION or PromethION) sequencing, the acquired ionic current signals can be decoded to the sequences of DNA or RNA with native modifications. The drawing for the figure got the support from BioIcons techniques and the images of sequencers are from Oxford Nanopore Technologies.

    • ONT’s ability to generate ultra-long reads (> 2 Mb) overcomes fundamental limitations of short-read technologies (e.g., Illumina) in repetitive regions like pericentromeres, telomeres, and nucleolar organizer regions[22,25]. This capability enabled the first high-resolution mapping of centromeric methylation in Arabidopsis[22], and provides three transformative advantages: (1) Allele-Specific Phasing: Long reads assign methylation states to parental alleles, revealing monoallelic phenomena (e.g., genomic imprinting at IG-DMR)[21]. (2) Structural Variant-Epigenetic Linkage: Simultaneous detection of structural variants (SVs) and co-localized methylation changes exposes how SVs disrupt regulatory landscapes[26,27]. (3) Single-Molecule Heterogeneity: Direct observation of mixed methylation states within a locus captures tumor mosaicism missed by bulk methods[7,28,29].

      Clinically, this was validated in cancer, where ONT identified allelic methylation imbalances at BRCA1 in 80% of tumors—undetectable by Illumina WGBS due to short-read mapping ambiguities[28].

    • ONT uniquely enables integrated 'hologenome' analysis from a single sample, correlating DNA methylation, RNA expression, and protein activity via barcoding[30]. By sequencing genomic DNA and cDNA in parallel from identical cell populations, experimental batch effects are eliminated, clarifying causal relationships between epigenetic states and transcriptional outcomes[30]. Adding Direct RNA Sequencing (DRS) further illuminates: (1) mRNA/lncRNA dynamics (splicing, polyadenylation, tail length) influenced by DNA methylation. (2) Native base modifications (e.g., m6A, pseudouridine) on regulatory RNAs that modulate epigenetic machinery (e.g., Polycomb complexes)[3134]. This multi-layered view was demonstrated in glioblastoma, where integrated ONT DDS/DRS profiling linked hypermethylated tumor suppressors to oncogene amplifications, enabling patient stratification[4]. ONT also serves as the ideal validation platform for epigenetic editing (e.g., dCas9-DNMT3A/TET1), providing precise methylation readouts at edited loci[1,4,5].

    • ONT’s portable MinION/Flongle platforms deliver real-time data acquisition, accelerating experimental optimization and clinical decision-making[35]. Applications include: (1) Point-of-care detection of epigenetic biomarkers (e.g., SEPT9 methylation for colorectal cancer screening)[3638]. (2) On-site environmental epigenomics (e.g., plant stress responses under drought/heat)[3]. (3) Space biology studies monitoring astronaut epigenetic drift during missions[39]. In contrast, short-read systems require off-site lab infrastructure, delaying results by days—a critical limitation for time-sensitive diagnostics or dynamic biological processes.

    • To systematically evaluate the strengths and limitations of Oxford Nanopore direct DNA/RNA sequencing (ONT DDS/DRS) for epigenetic profiling, a head-to-head comparison was conducted against established methodologies (Table 1). This analysis highlights critical trade-offs in sensitivity, resolution, scalability, and biological fidelity across technologies.

      Table 1.  Comparative performance of ONT direct sequencing vs traditional epigenetic technologies.

      Epigenetic parameter ONT direct sequencing (DDS/DRS) Traditional technologies
      (WGBS/ChIP-seq/meRNA-IP, etc.)
      DNA methylation Advantages • Simultaneous base-resolution detection of 5 mC, 5 hmC, 6 mA[40] • Gold standard for 5mC (bisulfite sequencing)
      • Resolves repetitive regions (e.g., centromeres)[22] • Lower cost per sample
      • Single-molecule resolution[7,40,41] • Mature bioinformatics pipelines
      Disadvantages • Requires high-input DNA quality • Limited to 5 mC (requires additional assays for
      5 hmC/6 mA)
      • Basecalling accuracy for modifications needs improvement[16,17] • Poor performance in repetitive regions
      • Computationally intensive (GPU-dependent)[16] • Bulk averaging masks single-molecule heterogeneity
      RNA base modifications Advantages • Direct detection without enrichment/conversion[18] • Lower cost
      • Multi-modification profiling in single reads[16,19] • Tolerates moderate RNA degradation
      • Single-molecule resolution[18,31] • Established protocols
      Disadvantages • Technical expertise required • Antibody-dependent (bias risk)
      • Higher cost per run • Single-modification per experiment
      • Underdeveloped modification-detection algorithms[16] • Labor-intensive workflow
      Histone modifications Advantages BIND&MODIFY: Simultaneous DNA methylation + histone mark profiling[24] • Field standard for histone marks
      • Single-cell epigenetic state resolution[23] • Lower cost
      • Direct correlation of histone-DNA crosstalk[23,24] • Mature analysis tools[13]
      Disadvantages • Requires nuclear isolation & protein engineering • GC bias in sequencing depth
      • Needs dual-modification algorithm development • Bulk averaging obscures cellular heterogeneity
      • Histone-to-6 mA conversion step adds complexity • No DNA methylation co-profiling
      Alternative splicing Advantages • Full-length transcript isoforms[18,31] • Lower cost
      • Single-molecule splicing patterns • Abundant third-party software
      • Multi-process integration (splicing + modifications)[31]
      Disadvantages • Higher cost than short-read RNA-seq • Assembly errors in isoform reconstruction
      • Data quality-dependent • No direct modification/splicing linkage
      • Limited statistical tools • Population-averaged data
      Poly(A) tail length Advantages • Multi-parameter profiling (tail length + splicing/modifications)[18] • Lower cost
      • Isoform-specific tail length detection • Detects tail heterogeneity
      • No additional experimental steps • Simple analysis
      Disadvantages • Higher cost than PAL-seq[42] • Isolated measurement (no multi-process context)
      • Insensitive to tail heterogeneity • Population-averaged data
      • Algorithmic limitations in estimation • Isoform-agnostic quantification
      Non-coding
      RNA (ncRNA)
      Advantages • Full-length lncRNA characterization • Universal ncRNA compatibility
      • ncRNA processing/modification detection[31] • Standardized protocols
      Disadvantages • Poly(A)-tail dependency limits non-polyadenylated ncRNAs • Fragmented long ncRNA assembly
      • Poor small ncRNA performance without adaptations • No direct modification detection
      • Higher cost • No single-molecule resolution
    • Despite its transformative potential, ONT direct sequencing faces critical hurdles that must be addressed to fully realize its utility in epigenetics:

      Key Challenges: (1) Basecalling Accuracy & Bias: While Dorado’s sup model achieves high accuracy for DNA modifications (e.g., 99.5% for CpG methylation, 98.7% for 5 hmC), and RNA modifications (98.7%–99.7% across contexts), it remains inferior to Illumina/PacBio for standard base calling (~99.9% to 99.99%)[40,41]. Crucially, residual biases persist—early models systematically undercalled modified bases[16], and even current algorithms require extensive training on modification-specific datasets to minimize context-dependent errors (e.g., sequence motif effects). This limits reliable detection of low-prevalence marks in heterogeneous samples like tumors. (2) Library Preparation Artifacts: Optimized protocols for native nucleic acid library preparation are less mature than those for bisulfite-converted or immunoprecipitated samples[16,38]. High variability in sequencing yields from identical total RNA inputs indicates significant technical noise, likely stemming from inconsistent end-repair, adapter ligation, or motor protein activity during translocation. Standardized, low-bias workflows are urgently needed to ensure reproducibility, particularly for single-cell applications. (3) Fragmented Bioinformatics Ecosystem: The absence of universal analysis tools impedes reproducibility. Most modification callers (e.g., deepsignal-plants, Xpore, m6Anet) are instrument- or flowcell-specific (e.g., trained exclusively on R9.4.1 or RNA002 data), failing with newer chemistries like R10.4 or RNA004[16]. This siloed landscape forces researchers into laborious tool-switching and manual retraining, hindering scalable epigenetic analysis.

      Future Priorities: To overcome these barriers, efforts should prioritize: (1) Context-Aware Basecallers: Development of machine learning models trained on diverse epigenetic landscapes (e.g., mixed 5 mC/5 hmC regions, repetitive DNA) to improve detection of rare or complex modifications. (2) Hybrid Enrichment Strategies: Integration of targeted capture (e.g., CpG island probes) with ONT sequencing to deepen coverage of clinically relevant loci without sacrificing long-read advantages[43]. (3) CRISPR epigenetics Synergy: Coupling ONT with dCas9-effector systems (e.g., TET1 demethylases) for real-time validation of epigenetic edits at endogenous loci[1]. (4) Cost Reduction and Scalability: Engineering streamlined workflows to enable large-scale studies of epigenetic drift in aging, cancer evolution, and population genomics.

    • Oxford Nanopore direct sequencing represents a paradigm shift in epigenetic profiling, directly overcoming the fragmented, context-loss limitations of short-read technologies. By analyzing native nucleic acids at single-molecule resolution, generating ultra-long reads to resolve complex loci, integrating multi-omics layers (DNA methylation, histone marks, RNA dynamics), and enabling low-input/single-cell analyses, ONT provides an unprecedented lens into dynamic epigenetic processes central to health and disease. Although challenges in basecalling fidelity, library prep robustness, and bioinformatic interoperability remain, rapid advancements in nanopore chemistry, AI-driven signal processing, and community-driven tool development are accelerating ONT toward becoming the gold standard for comprehensive, biologically faithful epigenomic characterization. For researchers decoding the functional impact of epigenetic variation, ONT delivers not merely data—but the clarity, length, and depth required to resolve the epigenome’s true complexity.

      • This work was supported by the following grants: Yunnan Provincial Major Basic Research Projects (202401BC070003) to SZ; National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) Regional Science Foundation Projects (32460487) to SZ; Yunnan Provincial Major Science and Technology Special Projects (202502AE090006) to SZ. National Natural Science Foundation of China (32170362) to ML; Guangdong Natural Science Funds for Distinguished Young Scholars (2022B1515020026) to ML; Youth Innovation Promotion Association, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Y2021094) to ML.

      • Not applicable.

      • The authors confirm their contributions to the paper as follows: conceived and designed the study: Zhang S, Luo M; drafted the manuscript: Zhang S, Lu Z, Zhang H; contributed literature curation: Bai G, Luo M. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

      • Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study; all data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      • # Authors contributed equally: Zhihui Lu, Hanxue Zhang

      • Copyright: © 2026 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (1)  Table (1) References (43)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Lu Z, Zhang H, Bai G, Luo M, Zhang S. 2026. Advantages of Oxford Nanopore Technologies direct DNA/RNA sequencing for epigenetic profiling over traditional technologies. Epigenetics Insights 19: e003 doi: 10.48130/epi-0025-0017
    Lu Z, Zhang H, Bai G, Luo M, Zhang S. 2026. Advantages of Oxford Nanopore Technologies direct DNA/RNA sequencing for epigenetic profiling over traditional technologies. Epigenetics Insights 19: e003 doi: 10.48130/epi-0025-0017

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return