Assessment of LLMs on basic bioinformatics tasks requiring multi-step reasoning and code writing

MOTIVATION: Large Language Models (LLMs), AI agents and co-scientists promise to accelerate scientific discovery across fields ranging from chemistry to biology. Bioinformatics- the analysis of DNA, RNA and protein sequences plays a crucial role in biological research and is especially amenable to AI-driven automation given its computational nature. Here, we assess the bioinformatics capabilities of popular general-purpose LLMs on a set of tasks covering basic analytical questions that include code writing and multi-step reasoning in the domain. RESULTS: Utilizing questions from Rosalind, a bioinformatics educational platform, we compare the performance of the LLMs on 104 questions relative to expert ground truth and 68,760 humans with varying levels of expertise. Among the frontier LLMs evaluated (GPT-5.2, GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, Llama-3-70B, Llama-4 and Claude Sonnet 4.6), GPT-5.2 exhibited top performance, providing correct answers for 80/104 (77%) questions followed by Claude Sonnet 4.6. LLM performance varied widely depending on the biological categories of questions. While the latest generation of frontier LLM models showed overall improvements in performance, their performance in specific categories of biological questions was lower than first generation models. Overall, LLMs performance mirrored that of humans with lower performance in tasks in which humans had low performance and vice versa. However, LLMs also failed in some instances where most humans were correct and, in a few cases, LLMs excelled where most humans failed. To the best of our knowledge, this presents the first assessment of general purpose LLMs on basic bioinformatics tasks in distinct areas relative to both expert and non-expert ground truths. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The complete analysis was implemented in Python; all code is available at https://github.com/SiwoResearch/lllm-bioinformatics. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Bioinformatics
Published
2026-10-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btag749
Primary Topic
Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessment of LLMs on basic bioinformatics tasks requiring multi-step reasoning and code writing

Varsha Rajesh, Geoffrey Siwo, Shreya Jain, Maceo Blumberg
Bioinformatics
Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
article

Assessment of LLMs on basic bioinformatics tasks requiring multi-step reasoning and code writing

Varsha Rajesh, Geoffrey Siwo, Shreya Jain, Maceo Blumberg
article en

Abstract

MOTIVATION: Large Language Models (LLMs), AI agents and co-scientists promise to accelerate scientific discovery across fields ranging from chemistry to biology. Bioinformatics- the analysis of DNA, RNA and protein sequences plays a crucial role in biological research and is especially amenable to AI-driven automation given its computational nature. Here, we assess the bioinformatics capabilities of popular general-purpose LLMs on a set of tasks covering basic analytical questions that include code writing and multi-step reasoning in the domain. RESULTS: Utilizing questions from Rosalind, a bioinformatics educational platform, we compare the performance of the LLMs on 104 questions relative to expert ground truth and 68,760 humans with varying levels of expertise. Among the frontier LLMs evaluated (GPT-5.2, GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, Llama-3-70B, Llama-4 and Claude Sonnet 4.6), GPT-5.2 exhibited top performance, providing correct answers for 80/104 (77%) questions followed by Claude Sonnet 4.6. LLM performance varied widely depending on the biological categories of questions. While the latest generation of frontier LLM models showed overall improvements in performance, their performance in specific categories of biological questions was lower than first generation models. Overall, LLMs performance mirrored that of humans with lower performance in tasks in which humans had low performance and vice versa. However, LLMs also failed in some instances where most humans were correct and, in a few cases, LLMs excelled where most humans failed. To the best of our knowledge, this presents the first assessment of general purpose LLMs on basic bioinformatics tasks in distinct areas relative to both expert and non-expert ground truths. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The complete analysis was implemented in Python; all code is available at https://github.com/SiwoResearch/lllm-bioinformatics. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Bioinformatics
University of Michigan (US), Michigan Medicine (US), University of Global Health Equity (RW)
Openalex Percentile: Top 22%
Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
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.

Laika access coming soon