Jesse J. Salk

4.5k total citations · 2 hit papers
51 papers, 2.9k citations indexed

About

Jesse J. Salk is a scholar working on Cancer Research, Molecular Biology and Hematology. According to data from OpenAlex, Jesse J. Salk has authored 51 papers receiving a total of 2.9k indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 39 papers in Cancer Research, 31 papers in Molecular Biology and 9 papers in Hematology. Recurrent topics in Jesse J. Salk's work include Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics (30 papers), DNA Repair Mechanisms (13 papers) and CRISPR and Genetic Engineering (13 papers). Jesse J. Salk is often cited by papers focused on Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics (30 papers), DNA Repair Mechanisms (13 papers) and CRISPR and Genetic Engineering (13 papers). Jesse J. Salk collaborates with scholars based in United States, Canada and United Kingdom. Jesse J. Salk's co-authors include Lawrence A. Loeb, Michael W. Schmitt, Scott R. Kennedy, Edward Fox, Michael Schmitt, Joseph B. Hiatt, Brendan F. Kohrn, Eun Hyun Ahn, Jiang-Cheng Shen and Marc J. Prindle and has published in prestigious journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Environmental Science & Technology and Blood.

In The Last Decade

Jesse J. Salk

48 papers receiving 2.9k citations

Hit Papers

align trajectories

What are hit papers?

Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research topics.

Detection of ultra-rare mutations by next-generation sequencing

2012 727 citations Michael W. Schmitt, Scott R. Kennedy et al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences profile →
Enhancing the accuracy of next-generation sequencing for detecting rare and subclonal mutations

2018 337 citations Jesse J. Salk, Michael W. Schmitt et al. profile →

Peers

Jesse J. Salk

GENET

ONCOL

PFM

Edward Fox United States

Maurizio Fanciulli Italy

Søren Vang Denmark

Tetsuya Moriuchi Japan

Frank O. Fackelmayer Germany

Lei Zheng United States

Michael L. Atchison United States

Wenbin Wei United Kingdom

Pier Paolo Scaglioni United States

Céline Gongora France

Edward Fox United States

Jesse J. Salk

2.1k ×1.2

1.3k ×0.8

512 ×0.9

GENET

802 ×1.9

ONCOL

748 ×2.2

PFM

Citations per year, relative to Jesse J. Salk Jesse J. Salk (= 1×) peers Edward Fox

Countries citing papers authored by Jesse J. Salk

Since Specialization

Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Jesse J. Salk's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Jesse J. Salk with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Jesse J. Salk more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Jesse J. Salk

Since Specialization

Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Jesse J. Salk. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Jesse J. Salk. The network helps show where Jesse J. Salk may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Jesse J. Salk

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Jesse J. Salk. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Jesse J. Salk based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with Jesse J. Salk. Jesse J. Salk is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

Sort: Min cites: Since: Top N: Style:

20 of 20 papers shown

Yauk, Carole L., Anthony M. Lynch, Vasily N. Dobrovolsky, et al.. (2025). Application of error-corrected sequencing technologies for in vivo regulatory mutagenicity assessment. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 164. 105985–105985.

Ashford, A. E., Daniela Nachmanson, John W. Wills, et al.. (2025). Alignment between Duplex Sequencing and transgenic rodent mutation assay data in the assessment of in vivo NDMA-induced mutagenesis. Archives of Toxicology. 99(10). 4227–4242. 1 indexed citations

Zhou, Gu, Andrew Williams, Matthew J. Meier, et al.. (2025). Duplex sequencing identifies unique characteristics of ENU-induced mutations in male mouse germ cells. Biology of Reproduction. 112(5). 1015–1027. 2 indexed citations

Axelsson, Jonatan, Matthew J. Meier, Devon M. Fitzgerald, et al.. (2024). Frequency and spectrum of mutations in human sperm measured using duplex sequencing correlate with trio-based de novo mutation analyses. Scientific Reports. 14(1). 23134–23134. 2 indexed citations

Zhou, Gu, Andrew Williams, Matthew J. Meier, et al.. (2023). Duplex sequencing provides detailed characterization of mutation frequencies and spectra in the bone marrow of MutaMouse males exposed to procarbazine hydrochloride. Archives of Toxicology. 97(8). 2245–2259. 22 indexed citations

Salk, Jesse J., Iñigo Martincorena, Robert R. Young, et al.. (2023). Next Generation Sequencing Workshop at the Royal Society of Medicine (London, May 2022): how genomics is on the path to modernizing genetic toxicology. Mutagenesis. 38(4). 192–200. 3 indexed citations

Marchetti, Francesco, Connie L. Chen, George R. Douglas, et al.. (2023). Error-corrected next generation sequencing – Promises and challenges for genotoxicity and cancer risk assessment. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research. 792. 108466–108466. 30 indexed citations

Smith‐Roe, Stephanie L., Cheryl A. Hobbs, J. Todd Auman, et al.. (2023). Adopting duplex sequencing technology for genetic toxicity testing: A proof-of-concept mutagenesis experiment with N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea (ENU)-exposed rats. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 891. 503669–503669. 10 indexed citations

Swartz, Carol D., Andrew Williams, Miriam Rivas, et al.. (2023). Error-corrected duplex sequencing enables direct detection and quantification of mutations in human TK6 cells with strong inter-laboratory consistency. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 889. 503649–503649. 15 indexed citations

10.

Dillon, Laura W., Jake Higgins, Megan Othus, et al.. (2023). Quantification of measurable residual disease using duplex sequencing in adults with acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica. 109(2). 401–410. 18 indexed citations

11.

Wilson, Thomas E., Samreen Ahmed, Jake Higgins, Jesse J. Salk, & Thomas W. Glover. (2022). svCapture: efficient and specific detection of very low frequency structural variant junctions by error-minimized capture sequencing. NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics. 5(2). lqad042–lqad042. 2 indexed citations

12.

Meier, Matthew J., Elizabeth Schmidt, Charles C. Valentine, et al.. (2022). Duplex sequencing identifies genomic features that determine susceptibility to benzo(a)pyrene-induced in vivo mutations. BMC Genomics. 23(1). 542–542. 36 indexed citations

13.

Valentine, Charles C., Robert R. Young, Mark R. Fielden, et al.. (2020). Direct quantification of in vivo mutagenesis and carcinogenesis using duplex sequencing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117(52). 33414–33425. 75 indexed citations

14.

Short, Nicholas J., Hagop M. Kantarjian, Rashmi Kanagal‐Shamanna, et al.. (2020). Ultra-accurate Duplex Sequencing for the assessment of pretreatment ABL1 kinase domain mutations in Ph+ ALL. Blood Cancer Journal. 10(5). 61–61. 18 indexed citations

15.

Loeb, Lawrence A., Brendan F. Kohrn, Eun Hyun Ahn, et al.. (2019). Extensive subclonal mutational diversity in human colorectal cancer and its significance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116(52). 26863–26872. 37 indexed citations

16.

Nachmanson, Daniela, Shenyi Lian, Elizabeth Schmidt, et al.. (2018). Targeted genome fragmentation with CRISPR/Cas9 enables fast and efficient enrichment of small genomic regions and ultra-accurate sequencing with low DNA input (CRISPR-DS). Genome Research. 28(10). 1589–1599. 37 indexed citations

17.

Kennedy, Scott R., Michael W. Schmitt, Edward Fox, et al.. (2014). Detecting ultralow-frequency mutations by Duplex Sequencing. Nature Protocols. 9(11). 2586–2606. 314 indexed citations

18.

Schmitt, Michael W., Scott R. Kennedy, Jesse J. Salk, et al.. (2012). Detection of ultra-rare mutations by next-generation sequencing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109(36). 14508–14513. 727 indexed citations breakdown →

19.

Ericson, Nolan G., Mariola Kulawiec, Marc Vermulst, et al.. (2012). Decreased Mitochondrial DNA Mutagenesis in Human Colorectal Cancer. PLoS Genetics. 8(6). e1002689–e1002689. 64 indexed citations

20.

Salk, Jesse J., et al.. (2009). Optimization of DNA polymerase mutation rates during bacterial evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107(3). 1154–1159. 65 indexed citations

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore authors with similar magnitude of impact