Trustworthy Agentic AI in Bioinformatics: From Workflow Automation to Traceable and Validated Biological Inference

Agentic artificial intelligence is extending bioinformatics beyond conversational assistance by enabling systems to select tools, execute code, revise analytical plans, and interpret biological data. These capabilities may accelerate research, but they also redistribute decisions that determine whether biological conclusions are valid. We conducted a targeted, structured PubMed search in July 2026 and identified 11 peer-reviewed agentic bioinformatics systems for descriptive review based on predefined eligibility criteria for analytical decision-making, tool or code execution, iterative evaluation, or coordinated agent activity. The evidence base covered single-cell transcriptomics, microbial genomics, cancer genomics, and omics applications, together with methodological literature on reproducibility and biological validation. We examined how current systems report delegated authority, provenance, validation, evidence, abstention, and human oversight. Existing platforms implement safeguards such as sandboxed execution, restricted commands, interaction logs, evidence identifiers, automated checks, critic agents, quality scores, and expert assessment. However, published reports rarely provide a connected account linking the original biological question to samples, reference resources, analytical decisions, computational actions, statistical results, supporting evidence, validation outcomes, and final claims. We distinguish inherited bioinformatics errors, errors amplified through autonomous action, and emergent failures arising from memory, retrieval, tool interaction, or agent coordination. We further propose a multidimensional decision-rights profile, consequence-sensitive validation gates, and a claim-to-evidence provenance architecture organized through the Traceable History of Research Evidence, Agent Actions, and Decisions in Bioinformatics (THREAD-Bio) framework. Illustrative cases show that technically successful execution may still support misleading inference. Trustworthy agentic bioinformatics therefore requires claims to remain reconstructible, challengeable, validated, and proportionate to the evidence.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biology
Published
2026-09-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/biology15171537
Primary Topic
Scientific Computing and Data Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Trustworthy Agentic AI in Bioinformatics: From Workflow Automation to Traceable and Validated Biological Inference

Mia Yang Ang, Siew Woh Choo, Leonard Lipovich, Li Chen et al.
Biology
Scientific Computing and Data Management
article

Trustworthy Agentic AI in Bioinformatics: From Workflow Automation to Traceable and Validated Biological Inference

Mia Yang Ang, Siew Woh Choo, Leonard Lipovich, Li Chen, Lanni Song
article en

Abstract

Agentic artificial intelligence is extending bioinformatics beyond conversational assistance by enabling systems to select tools, execute code, revise analytical plans, and interpret biological data. These capabilities may accelerate research, but they also redistribute decisions that determine whether biological conclusions are valid. We conducted a targeted, structured PubMed search in July 2026 and identified 11 peer-reviewed agentic bioinformatics systems for descriptive review based on predefined eligibility criteria for analytical decision-making, tool or code execution, iterative evaluation, or coordinated agent activity. The evidence base covered single-cell transcriptomics, microbial genomics, cancer genomics, and omics applications, together with methodological literature on reproducibility and biological validation. We examined how current systems report delegated authority, provenance, validation, evidence, abstention, and human oversight. Existing platforms implement safeguards such as sandboxed execution, restricted commands, interaction logs, evidence identifiers, automated checks, critic agents, quality scores, and expert assessment. However, published reports rarely provide a connected account linking the original biological question to samples, reference resources, analytical decisions, computational actions, statistical results, supporting evidence, validation outcomes, and final claims. We distinguish inherited bioinformatics errors, errors amplified through autonomous action, and emergent failures arising from memory, retrieval, tool interaction, or agent coordination. We further propose a multidimensional decision-rights profile, consequence-sensitive validation gates, and a claim-to-evidence provenance architecture organized through the Traceable History of Research Evidence, Agent Actions, and Decisions in Bioinformatics (THREAD-Bio) framework. Illustrative cases show that technically successful execution may still support misleading inference. Trustworthy agentic bioinformatics therefore requires claims to remain reconstructible, challengeable, validated, and proportionate to the evidence.

BiologyVol. 15(17)
Wenzhou-Kean University (CN), Kean University (US), Sunway University (MY)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Scientific Computing and Data Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.