Don't expect much originality in a Materials and Methods section! 
The main goal of this section is to describe what you did, so that readers can understand how it might affect your results and the conclusions you draw from them. Precision, rather than originality, is the overarching goal. Consequently, if you use the same method as Jones et al. (2022), your methods section is probably going to look somewhat like theirs too. You certainly should not copy text verbatim , but no one should be alarmed or suspicious if the organization and details are generally similar. There are only so many ways to describe doing a Western Blot, even if you make heavy use of a thesaurus. In fact, some tools are now even suggesting that users describe the methods in a standardized way, so that it is easy to compare within/across papers; check out this page from NIPreps.
In other writing, you might be tempted to avoid this issue by including just a citation. However, this isn't ideal for Methods sections because it means the reader now needs to flip through other papers to figure out what you did--and it probably isn't exactly the same either.
Instead, I prefer a hybrid approach. Start with an overview paragraph that cites the paper(s) from which you derived your methods. Note any major changes here. In the subsections that follow, provide a complete description of your/their methods, adding in other references as needed. The methods section does not have to be purely procedural--you can also briefly discuss why you used specific approaches, or mention other methods that did not work as well. This can help make these sections feel more "original" if it's bothering you.
This ticks all the boxes:
- Credit is prominently and appropriately given to other work, so no one can complain about plagiarism.
- The paper contains a complete description of what was done.
- Readers know where to direct their attention. Someone familiar with cited work can skip the Methods entirely--or jump straight to the differences. Others who haven't read it gets a complete description, without having to chase papers.
Good luck and don't overthink this. Your advisor or committee should be able to help you with any specifics too!
: The bar is obviously higher if you're claiming that the method itself is novel. Even there though, you'd probably test it against standard methods and those can have pretty formulaic descriptions.
: Copying between your own paper and your thesis might be an exception. Some places permit "sandwich" theses where you literally include the published manuscript. If so, even literal copying might be fine (with a citation, of course).