What Large Language Models Know About Plant Molecular Biology

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-24 · read from full text

The paper studied how well large language models (LLMs) perform in plant molecular biology by introducing MoBiPlant, a benchmark developed by 112 plant scientists across 19 countries with 565 expert-curated multiple-choice questions and 1,075 synthetically generated ones covering topics such as gene regulation and plant-environment interactions. Seven leading chat-based LLMs were evaluated using automated scoring and human review of open-ended answers, with multiple-choice accuracy exceeding 75% but a recurring bias toward option A and expert-identified limitations including factual misalignment, hallucinations, and low self-awareness. A key caveat is that performance differences were analyzed in relation to citation frequency of source literature, implying dependence on how frequently information appears in training corpora rather than uniform encoding of plant biology. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

ABSTRACT Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly permeating scientific research, yet their capabilities in plant molecular biology remain largely uncharacterized. Here, we present MOBIPLANT, the first comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs in this domain, developed by a consortium of 112 plant scientists across 19 countries. MOBIPLANT comprises 565 expert-curated multiple-choice questions and 1,075 synthetically generated questions, spanning core topics from gene regulation to plant-environment interactions. We benchmarked seven leading chat-based LLMs using both automated scoring and human evaluation of open-ended answers. Models performed well on multiple-choice tasks (exceeding 75% accuracy), although most of them exhibited a consistent bias towards option A. In contrast, expert reviews exposed persistent limitations, including factual misalignment, hallucinations, and low self-awareness. Critically, we found that model performance strongly correlated with the citation frequency of source literature, suggesting that LLM knowledge inherits the visibility distribution of the underlying scientific corpus. Consequently, models tend to be more reliable on consolidated topics and less reliable on under-cited or recently emerging ones. We also benchmarked agents equipped with web-search and additional tools in more complex tasks involving DNA sequence analysis. These agents were outperformed by domain specific models in sequence classification and regression tasks, indicating an opportunity for joint agentic systems that combine both the reasoning power of LLMs and the dedicated processing of DNA models. This understanding is key to guiding both the development of next-generation models and the informed use of current tools in the everyday work of plant researchers. MOBIPLANT is publicly available online in this link .
Full text 1,494 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
ABSTRACT Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly permeating scientific research, yet their capabilities in plant molecular biology remain largely uncharacterized. Here, we present MoBiPlant, the first comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs in this domain, developed by a consortium of 112 plant scientists across 19 countries. MoBiPlant comprises 565 expert-curated multiple-choice questions and 1,075 synthetically generated questions, spanning core topics from gene regulation to plant-environment interactions. We benchmarked seven leading chat-based LLMs using both automated scoring and human evaluation of open-ended answers. Models performed well on multiple-choice tasks (exceeding 75% accuracy), although most of them exhibited a consistent bias towards option A. In contrast, expert reviews exposed persistent limitations, including factual misalignment, hallucinations, and low self-awareness. Critically, we found that model performance strongly correlated with the citation frequency of source literature, suggesting that LLMs do not simply encode plant biology knowledge uniformly, but are instead shaped by the visibility and frequency of information in their training corpora. This understanding is key to guiding both the development of next-generation models and the informed use of current tools in the everyday work of plant researchers. MoBiPlant is publicly available online in this link. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-28T02:00:01.590549+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0