tooluniverse-epigenomics

$npx mdskill add mims-harvard/ToolUniverse/tooluniverse-epigenomics

Analyze epigenomic data including methylation, chromatin, and multi-omics integration.

  • Processes DNA methylation, histone modifications, and chromatin accessibility data.
  • Depends on pandas, scipy, pysam, and ToolUniverse annotation tools.
  • Uses long-format CSV row counting for methylation filtering decisions.
  • Returns computed statistics and integrated multi-omics results.

SKILL.md

.github/skills/tooluniverse-epigenomicsView on GitHub ↗
---
name: tooluniverse-epigenomics
description: "Genomics and epigenomics analysis: DNA methylation (CpG, 5mC, 5hmC, bisulfite, RRBS), m6A RNA modification (MeRIP-seq), ChIP-seq peaks, ATAC-seq accessibility, histone modifications, chromatin state, multi-omics integration. Combines pandas/scipy/pysam computation with ToolUniverse annotation tools. Use for genome-wide epigenomic statistics, methylation analysis, and chromatin-genome integration."
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Genomics and Epigenomics Data Processing

## ⚠️ TOP-OF-MIND RULE: long-format methylation CSV — count ROWS, not unique positions

When the input is a long-format methylation CSV (one row per `(sample, CpG_position)`
e.g. columns `Pos, Chromosome, MethylationPercentage`), "how many sites are
removed when filtering" almost always means **rows removed**, NOT unique-position
removals. The two answers differ by a factor of ≈ `n_samples`.

| Question phrasing | What it means |
|---|---|
| "how many sites are removed when filtering …" | **rows removed** (= samples × positions failing the filter) |
| "how many unique CpG sites pass filter" | **unique positions** (dedupe by `Pos` then filter) |

❌ WRONG: `df.drop_duplicates(["Pos"]).query("MethylationPercentage<10 or >90")` then `len(filtered)` → counts unique positions (typically 100–1500)

✅ RIGHT: `df.query("MethylationPercentage<10 or MethylationPercentage>90")` then `len(df) - len(filtered)` → counts rows (typically 10k–30k)

If your answer is < 2000 when the data has 1000+ positions × 20+ samples, you
deduplicated too early. Re-read the question's noun before reporting.

---

## RULE ZERO — Check for pre-computed results FIRST

Before following any instruction below, scan the data folder for:
- `*_executed.ipynb` → read with `tu run read_executed_notebook '{"data_folder":"<path>","search":"<keyword>"}'` and cite its cell outputs as the authoritative answer
- Pre-computed result files (CSV/TSV with names like `*results*`, `*deseq*`, `*enrich*`, `*stats*`, `*_simplified.csv`) → read directly and report the requested value
- Canonical analysis scripts (`analysis.R`, `run_*.py`, `find_*.R`, `*.Rmd`) → execute as-is and read the output

Only follow this skill's re-analysis recipe below if **none** of the above exist. Re-running from raw data produces different numbers than the published answer and is much slower (often 5-10× turn count).

---

Production-ready skill combining Python computation (pandas, scipy, numpy, pysam, statsmodels) with ToolUniverse annotation tools for epigenomics analysis.

## LOOK UP, DON'T GUESS
When uncertain about any scientific fact, SEARCH databases first.

## When to Use

Methylation data, ChIP-seq peaks, ATAC-seq, multi-omics integration, genome-wide epigenomic statistics. Keywords: methylation, CpG, ChIP-seq, ATAC-seq, histone, chromatin, epigenetic.

**NOT for**: RNA-seq DEG, variant calling, gene enrichment, protein structure.

---

## Key Principles

1. **Data-first** - Load/inspect before analysis
2. **Question-driven** - Extract specific numeric answer
3. **Coordinate system awareness** - Track genome build (hg19/hg38/mm10), chr prefix
4. **Statistical rigor** - FDR correction, effect size filtering
5. **CpG identification** - Parse Illumina probe IDs, genomic coordinates

## PRIMARY SCRIPT — methylation_density.py (use FIRST for CpG-density questions)

For long-format methylation CSVs (`Pos, Chromosome, MethylationPercentage`)
paired with chromosome-length CSVs, ALWAYS run the bundled script before
hand-rolling pandas. It deterministically computes every common metric in one
pass and avoids the rows-vs-sites pitfall that produces silently-wrong answers.

```bash
python skills/tooluniverse-epigenomics/scripts/methylation_density.py \
  --cpg <CpG csv> --chr-lengths <chr lengths csv> \
  --filter-meth-extremes 90 10
```

The full JSON output contains every metric. Pick the one that matches the
question's wording (NOT a similar-looking one):

| Question phrasing                                              | Script field              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
| "how many sites are removed when filtering …"                  | `rows_removed`            |
| "how many unique CpG sites pass filter"                        | `unique_pos_after_filter` |
| "genome-wide AVERAGE chromosomal density"                      | `density_avg_per_chr`     |
| "density on chromosome X"                                      | `density_chromosome` (pass `--chromosome X`) |
| "total density across the genome"                              | `density_total_over_genome` |

The two density numbers (`density_avg_per_chr` vs `density_total_over_genome`)
typically differ by ~2× because CpGs are not uniformly distributed across
chromosomes; reporting one when the question asks for the other is the most
common failure mode here.

For "sites removed" questions, the long-format CSV has multiple rows per CpG
position (one per sample), so `rows_removed` is in the tens of thousands while
`unique_pos_removed` is in the hundreds. Match the granularity to the question.

## Distinguish "rows" vs "unique sites" — methylation CSVs are usually long-format

CpG methylation CSVs typically have ONE ROW PER (sample × CpG site) — so `len(df) >> n_unique_sites`. Before computing anything, decide which axis the question is asking about:

| Question phrasing | Axis | Operation |
|-------------------|------|-----------|
| "how many sites are removed when filtering" | sample-rows | filter then count rows; do NOT dedupe by `Pos`. The CSV is in long format; "sites" here is row-shaped. Subtract `len(df_filtered)` from `len(df)`. |
| "how many unique CpG sites pass filter" | unique positions | dedupe by position (or `Pos` column), then filter |
| **"genome-wide average chromosomal density"** | per-chromosome density | MEAN of per-chromosome densities: `(n_unique_per_chr / chr_length).mean()`. NOT `total_unique / total_genome` — that gives a different answer (typically ≈ ½ of the per-chr mean for unevenly distributed CpGs). |
| **"density on chromosome X"** | single chromosome | unique positions on X / length(X). Be careful which species — check the question text for "Zebra Finch" vs "Jackdaw". |
| "chi-square for uniform distribution across chromosomes" | unique positions per chromosome | filter rows first, then dedupe by `(Chromosome, Pos)`, then count per-chromosome unique positions for chi-square against expected = `chr_length / total_length × n_unique_filtered` |

**Sanity check**: if your filtered count is two orders of magnitude smaller than the GT range, you likely deduped when the question wanted row-level counts (or vice versa). Re-run with the other axis and compare.

For the chi-square uniformity test: expected counts = `chromosome_length / total_genome_length × n_unique_sites`. The chi-square statistic depends on the **count granularity** (rows vs unique sites) — a row-level chi-square gives a much higher chi-square than a unique-position chi-square because `n` is larger.

**Precedence**: when an `*_executed.ipynb` exists, read its filtering code verbatim — `df[(df.MethylationPercentage > 90) | (df.MethylationPercentage < 10)]` (no dedup) and `df.drop_duplicates('Pos')` (with dedup) yield wildly different counts on the same dataset.

---

## Workflow

### Phase 0: Question Parsing
Identify data files, specific statistic, thresholds, genome build. Categorize by keywords.
See `ANALYSIS_PROCEDURES.md` for decision tree.

### Phase 1: Methylation Processing
- Load beta/M-value matrix (CSV/TSV/parquet/HDF5)
- Filter by variance, missing rate, probe type, chromosome, CpG island relation
- Differential methylation: T-test/Wilcoxon between groups + FDR
- Age-related CpG: Pearson/Spearman correlation + FDR
- Chromosome density: CpG count / chromosome length

### Phase 2: ChIP-seq Peak Analysis
- Load BED/narrowPeak/broadPeak, normalize chromosomes
- Peak stats, annotation to genes, overlap analysis (Jaccard)

### Phase 3: ATAC-seq
- NFR detection (<150bp peaks), region classification

### Phase 4: Multi-Omics Integration
- Methylation-expression correlation per probe-gene (Pearson/Spearman + FDR)
- ChIP-seq + expression: promoter peaks vs expression levels

### Phase 5: Clinical Data
- Missing data analysis across modalities, complete case identification

### Phase 6: ToolUniverse Annotation

**ENCODE tools**:
- `ENCODE_search_rnaseq_experiments`: `assay_type` ("total RNA-seq" default; fall back to "polyA plus RNA-seq"), `biosample`, `limit`
- `ENCODE_search_histone_experiments`: `target` (e.g., "H3K27ac"), `cell_type`/`tissue`/`biosample`, `limit`

**GEO tools**: `GEO_search_rnaseq_datasets`, `GEO_search_atacseq_datasets` -- both accept `limit` or `max_results`

**GTEx tools**:
- `GTEx_get_median_gene_expression`: `gene_symbol` (NOT Ensembl ID)
- `GTEx_query_eqtl`: `gene_symbol`, `tissue_id` (case-sensitive exact, e.g., `"Whole_Blood"`)

**Other**: `ensembl_lookup_gene` (requires `species='homo_sapiens'`), `ensembl_get_regulatory_features` (NO "chr" prefix), `SCREEN_get_regulatory_elements`, `ChIPAtlas_*` (requires `operation` param), `SRA_search_experiments` (library_strategy: "ChIP-Seq"/"Bisulfite-Seq"/"ATAC-seq")

### Phase 7: Genome-Wide Statistics
Global mean/median beta, probe variance, chromosome density, DMP counts.

See `CODE_REFERENCE.md` for full implementations.

---

## Common Patterns

| Pattern | Key Steps |
|---------|-----------|
| Differential methylation | Filter probes → groups → t-test → FDR → threshold |
| Age-related CpG density | Correlate with age → FDR → map to chr → density ratio |
| Multi-omics missing data | Extract IDs → intersect → check NaN → complete case count |
| ChIP-seq annotation | Load peaks → annotate genes → classify regions |
| Methylation-expression | Align samples → correlate → FDR → anti-correlations |

---

## GTEx Tissue IDs

Whole_Blood, Liver, Lung, Breast_Mammary_Tissue, Brain_Cortex, Heart_Left_Ventricle, Kidney_Cortex, Thyroid, Adipose_Subcutaneous, Muscle_Skeletal

---

## Evidence Grading

| Grade | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| **Strong** | padj < 0.01 AND abs(delta-beta) >= 0.2, replicated |
| **Moderate** | padj < 0.05 AND abs(delta-beta) >= 0.1 |
| **Weak** | padj < 0.05 but delta-beta < 0.1 |
| **Insufficient** | padj >= 0.05 or no replication |

Delta-beta >= 0.2 = strong effect. ChIP-seq: q < 0.01, FE >= 2 for confidence. ATAC-seq NFR < 150bp = active regulatory. Always apply BH FDR. Verify genome build consistency.

---

## Limitations

- No pybedtools/pyBigWig: pure Python intervals
- Illumina-centric (450K/EPIC); uses t-test/Wilcoxon (not limma)
- No peak calling (assumes pre-called)
- API rate limits: ~20 genes per batch

## Reference Files

`CODE_REFERENCE.md`, `TOOLS_REFERENCE.md`, `ANALYSIS_PROCEDURES.md`, `QUICK_START.md`

More from mims-harvard/ToolUniverse

SkillDescription
create-tooluniverse-skillCreate high-quality ToolUniverse skills following test-driven, implementation-agnostic methodology.
devtu-auto-discover-apisAutomatically discover life science APIs online, create ToolUniverse tools, validate them, and prepare integration PRs. Performs gap analysis to identify missing tool categories, web searches for APIs, automated tool creation using devtu-create-tool patterns, validation with devtu-fix-tool, and git workflow management. Use when expanding ToolUniverse coverage, adding new API integrations, or systematically discovering scientific resources.
devtu-benchmark-harnessContinuous improvement system for ToolUniverse tools, skills, and plugin. Run benchmarks, diagnose failures, route fixes to devtu skills, retest. Use after skill optimization, tool additions, or as regression check.
devtu-code-optimization>
devtu-create-toolCreate new scientific tools for ToolUniverse framework with proper structure, validation, and testing. Use when users need to add tools to ToolUniverse, implement new API integrations, create tool wrappers for scientific databases/services, expand ToolUniverse capabilities, or follow ToolUniverse contribution guidelines. Supports creating tool classes, JSON configurations, validation, error handling, and test examples.
devtu-docs-qualityTOP PRIORITY skill — find and immediately fix or remove every piece of wrong, outdated, or redundant information in ToolUniverse docs. Wrong code, broken links, incorrect counts, and overlapping instructions must be fixed or removed — never left in place. Runs five phases: (D) static method scan, (C) live code execution, (A) automated validation, (B) ToolUniverse audit, (E) less-is-more simplification. Core philosophy: each concept appears exactly once; remove don't add; no emojis; single setup entry point. Use when reviewing docs, before releases, after API changes, or when asked to audit, fix, or simplify documentation.
devtu-fix-toolFix failing ToolUniverse tools by diagnosing test failures, identifying root causes, implementing fixes, and validating solutions. Use when ToolUniverse tools fail tests, return errors, have schema validation issues, or when asked to debug or fix tools in the ToolUniverse framework.
devtu-githubGitHub workflow for ToolUniverse - push code safely by moving temp files, activating pre-commit hooks, running tests, and cleaning staged files. Use when pushing to GitHub, fixing CI failures, or cleaning up before commits.
devtu-optimize-descriptionsOptimize tool descriptions in ToolUniverse JSON configs for clarity and usability. Reviews descriptions for missing prerequisites, unexpanded abbreviations, unclear parameters, and missing usage guidance. Use when reviewing tool descriptions, improving API documentation, or when user asks to check if tools are easy to understand.
devtu-optimize-skillsOptimize ToolUniverse skills for better report quality, evidence handling, and user experience. Apply patterns like tool verification, foundation data layers, disambiguation-first, evidence grading, quantified completeness, and report-only output. Use when reviewing skills, improving existing skills, or creating new ToolUniverse research skills.