World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Molecular Biology 42 2996 2726 1420 1277 126 16885

Alicia Clum publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Alicia Clum between 2007 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Alicia Clum published across 19 years, from 2007 to 2025, averaging 8.7 papers a year. Output peaked at 26 publications in 2017. 24 of the 165 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15 20 25
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2007 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 26. Peak 26 publications in 2017. 2007: 2 publications 2008: 4 publications 2009: 3 publications 2010: 7 publications 2011: 5 publications 2012: 3 publications 2013: 5 publications 2014: 2 publications 2015: 6 publications 2016: 18 publications 2017: 26 publications 2018: 16 publications 2019: 8 publications 2020: 13 publications 2021: 12 publications 2022: 7 publications 2023: 4 publications 2024: 11 publications 2025: 13 publications
2007 2025

165 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Alicia Clum: publications per year, 2007 to 2025
Year Publications
2007 2
2008 4
2009 3
2010 7
2011 5
2012 3
2013 5
2014 2
2015 6
2016 18
2017 26
2018 16
2019 8
2020 13
2021 12
2022 7
2023 4
2024 11
2025 13
Total 165
Download as CSV

Alicia Clum publication distribution in Molecular Biology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Molecular Biology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Alicia Clum sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
50 100 150
Bar chart with 53 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 47–56 to 564+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 177. Most scientists, 177, have 117–126 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 564 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 117–126 publications, is where this scientist sits. 47–56 publications: 7 scientists 57–66 publications: 17 scientists 67–76 publications: 65 scientists 77–86 publications: 90 scientists 87–96 publications: 125 scientists 97–106 publications: 131 scientists 107–116 publications: 162 scientists 117–126 publications: 177 scientists 127–136 publications: 158 scientists 137–146 publications: 158 scientists 147–156 publications: 146 scientists 157–166 publications: 159 scientists 167–176 publications: 131 scientists 177–186 publications: 110 scientists 187–196 publications: 112 scientists 197–206 publications: 100 scientists 207–216 publications: 89 scientists 217–226 publications: 98 scientists 227–236 publications: 74 scientists 237–246 publications: 72 scientists 247–256 publications: 63 scientists 257–266 publications: 53 scientists 267–276 publications: 54 scientists 277–286 publications: 49 scientists 287–296 publications: 52 scientists 297–306 publications: 43 scientists 307–316 publications: 46 scientists 317–326 publications: 41 scientists 327–336 publications: 42 scientists 337–346 publications: 31 scientists 347–356 publications: 28 scientists 357–366 publications: 29 scientists 367–376 publications: 26 scientists 377–386 publications: 24 scientists 387–396 publications: 24 scientists 397–406 publications: 14 scientists 407–416 publications: 13 scientists 417–426 publications: 20 scientists 427–436 publications: 12 scientists 437–446 publications: 20 scientists 447–456 publications: 11 scientists 457–466 publications: 10 scientists 467–476 publications: 14 scientists 477–486 publications: 14 scientists 487–496 publications: 10 scientists 497–506 publications: 13 scientists 507–516 publications: 13 scientists 517–526 publications: 2 scientists 527–536 publications: 4 scientists 537–546 publications: 6 scientists 547–556 publications: 8 scientists 557–563 publications: 6 scientists 564+ publications: 100 scientists
47–56 publications 564+

This scientist: 126 publications — 25th percentile

25% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 564 publications or more.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Molecular Biology scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 3,076 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
47–56 7
57–66 17
67–76 65
77–86 90
87–96 125
97–106 131
107–116 162
117–126 177 126
127–136 158
137–146 158
147–156 146
157–166 159
167–176 131
177–186 110
187–196 112
197–206 100
207–216 89
217–226 98
227–236 74
237–246 72
247–256 63
257–266 53
267–276 54
277–286 49
287–296 52
297–306 43
307–316 46
317–326 41
327–336 42
337–346 31
347–356 28
357–366 29
367–376 26
377–386 24
387–396 24
397–406 14
407–416 13
417–426 20
427–436 12
437–446 20
447–456 11
457–466 10
467–476 14
477–486 14
487–496 10
497–506 13
507–516 13
517–526 2
527–536 4
537–546 6
547–556 8
557–563 6
564+ 100
Download as CSV

Alicia Clum D-index placement in Molecular Biology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Molecular Biology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Alicia Clum sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
25 50 75 100 125
Bar chart with 54 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 40–41 to 145+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 131. Most scientists, 131, have 64–65 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 145 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 42–43 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 40–41 D-Index: 36 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 101 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 115 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 121 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 118 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 130 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 106 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 116 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 113 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 129 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 120 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 105 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 131 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 95 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 97 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 106 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 83 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 89 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 77 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 70 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 73 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 60 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 48 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 45 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 50 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 31 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 51 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 43 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 38 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 39 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 41 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 29 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 33 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 35 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 20 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 38 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 19 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 28 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 13 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 23 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 16 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 15 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 11 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 21 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 7 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 13 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 14 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 17 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 9 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 8 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 16 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 7 scientists 144 D-Index: 7 scientists 145+ D-Index: 100 scientists
40–41 D-Index 145+

This scientist: 42 D-Index — 3rd percentile

3% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 145 D-Index or more.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Molecular Biology scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 3,076 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
40–41 36
42–43 101 42
44–45 115
46–47 121
48–49 118
50–51 130
52–53 106
54–55 116
56–57 113
58–59 129
60–61 120
62–63 105
64–65 131
66–67 95
68–69 97
70–71 106
72–73 83
74–75 89
76–77 77
78–79 70
80–81 73
82–83 60
84–85 48
86–87 45
88–89 50
90–91 31
92–93 51
94–95 43
96–97 38
98–99 39
100–101 41
102–103 29
104–105 33
106–107 35
108–109 20
110–111 38
112–113 19
114–115 28
116–117 13
118–119 23
120–121 16
122–123 15
124–125 11
126–127 21
128–129 7
130–131 13
132–133 14
134–135 17
136–137 9
138–139 8
140–141 16
142–143 7
144 7
145+ 100
Download as CSV

Overview

Alicia Clum is affiliated with the Joint Genome Institute in the United States and has contributed extensively to research in the fields of biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, environmental science, and agricultural and biological sciences. Their work frequently spans molecular biology, ecology, plant science, cell biology, and ecology, evolution, behavior, and systematics.

The primary research topics covered by Alicia Clum include microbial community ecology and physiology, genomics and phylogenetic studies, mycorrhizal fungi and plant interactions, plant pathogens and fungal diseases, protist diversity and phylogeny, environmental DNA in biodiversity studies, and plant-microbe interactions and immunity.

Recent publications by Alicia Clum and collaborators include:

  • Large-scale genome sequencing of mycorrhizal fungi provides insights into the early evolution of symbiotic traits, 2020, Nature Communications
  • A comparative genomics study of 23 Aspergillus species from section Flavi, 2020, Nature Communications
  • DOE JGI Metagenome Workflow, 2021, mSystems
  • Genetic determinants of endophytism in the Arabidopsis root mycobiome, 2021, Nature Communications
  • Terabase-scale metagenome coassembly with MetaHipMer, 2020, Scientific Reports

Frequent coauthors working alongside Alicia Clum include Emiley A. Eloe-Fadrosh, Chris Daum, Marcel Huntemann, Simon Roux, and Natalia Ivanova.

Publication venues where Alicia Clum has appeared most often are:

  • Microbiology Resource Announcements
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • Nature Communications
  • mSystems
  • Scientific Data

Best Publications

  • Nonhybrid, finished microbial genome assemblies from long-read SMRT sequencing data

    Chen Shan Chin;David H. Alexander;Patrick Marks;Aaron A. Klammer

  • Minimum information about a single amplified genome (MISAG) and a metagenome-assembled genome (MIMAG) of bacteria and archaea

    Robert M. Bowers;Nikos C. Kyrpides;Ramunas Stepanauskas;Miranda Harmon-Smith

  • Phased diploid genome assembly with single-molecule real-time sequencing

    Chen-Shan Chin;Paul Peluso;Fritz J Sedlazeck;Maria Nattestad

  • Convergent losses of decay mechanisms and rapid turnover of symbiosis genes in mycorrhizal mutualists.

    Annegret Kohler;Annegret Kohler;Alan Kuo;Laszlo G Nagy;Laszlo G Nagy;Emmanuelle Morin;Emmanuelle Morin

  • Comparative genomics reveals high biological diversity and specific adaptations in the industrially and medically important fungal genus Aspergillus

    Ronald P. de Vries;Robert Riley;Ad Wiebenga;Guillermo Aguilar-Osorio

  • Large-scale genome sequencing of mycorrhizal fungi provides insights into the early evolution of symbiotic traits.

    Shingo Miyauchi;Enikő Kiss;Alan Kuo;Elodie Drula

  • Comparative genomics of biotechnologically important yeasts

    Robert Riley;Sajeet Haridas;Kenneth H Wolfe;Mariana R Lopes

  • Widespread adenine N6-methylation of active genes in fungi

    Stephen J Mondo;Richard O Dannebaum;Rita C Kuo;Katherine B Louie

  • One Bacterial Cell, One Complete Genome

    Tanja Woyke;Damon Tighe;Konstantinos Mavromatis;Alicia Clum

  • Comparative genomics of xylose-fermenting fungi for enhanced biofuel production

    Dana J. Wohlbach;Dana J. Wohlbach;Alan Kuo;Trey K. Sato;Katlyn M. Potts

  • Comparative genomics and transcriptomics depict ericoid mycorrhizal fungi as versatile saprotrophs and plant mutualists

    Elena Martino;Elena Martino;Emmanuelle Morin;Gwen‐Aëlle Grelet;Alan Kuo

  • Investigation of inter- and intraspecies variation through genome sequencing of Aspergillus section Nigri

    Tammi Camilla Vesth;Jane L Nybo;Sebastian Theobald;Jens Christian Frisvad

  • The fast changing landscape of sequencing technologies and their impact on microbial genome assemblies and annotation.

    Konstantinos Mavromatis;Miriam L. Land;Thomas S. Brettin;Daniel J. Quest

  • Phylogenomic Analyses Indicate that Early Fungi Evolved Digesting Cell Walls of Algal Ancestors of Land Plants

    Ying-Ying Chang;Sishuo Wang;Satoshi Sekimoto;Satoshi Sekimoto;Andrea L. Aerts

  • Ectomycorrhizal ecology is imprinted in the genome of the dominant symbiotic fungus Cenococcum geophilum

    Martina Peter;Annegret Kohler;Robin A. Ohm;Robin A. Ohm;Alan Kuo

  • A comparative genomics study of 23 Aspergillus species from section Flavi

    Inge Kjærbølling;Tammi Camilla Vesth;Jens Christian Frisvad;Jane L. Nybo

  • A genomic perspective on the potential of Actinobacillus succinogenes for industrial succinate production

    James B McKinlay;James B McKinlay;Maris Laivenieks;Bryan D Schindler;Anastasia A McKinlay

  • Genome Data Provides High Support for Generic Boundaries in Burkholderia Sensu Lato.

    Chrizelle W. Beukes;Marike Palmer;Puseletso Manyaka;Wai Y. Chan

  • Linking secondary metabolites to gene clusters through genome sequencing of six diverse Aspergillus species

    Inge Kjærbølling;Tammi C. Vesth;Jens C. Frisvad;Jane L. Nybo

  • Additional file 8: of Comparative genomics reveals high biological diversity and specific adaptations in the industrially and medically important fungal genus Aspergillus

    Ronald de Vries;Robert Riley;Ad Wiebenga;Guillermo Aguilar-Osorio

Frequent Co-Authors

Nikos C. Kyrpides
Nikos C. Kyrpides Joint Genome Institute
Natalia Ivanova
Natalia Ivanova Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Tanja Woyke
Tanja Woyke Joint Genome Institute
Igor V. Grigoriev
Igor V. Grigoriev Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Bernard Henrissat
Bernard Henrissat Technical University of Denmark
Marcel Huntemann
Marcel Huntemann Joint Genome Institute
Alla Lapidus
Alla Lapidus Saint Petersburg State University
Kerrie Barry
Kerrie Barry United States Department of Energy
Alex Copeland
Alex Copeland Joint Genome Institute
Anna Lipzen
Anna Lipzen United States Department of Energy

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

If you are fascinated by molecular biology but want to keep your career options open, there are several related online degrees and healthcare pathways to consider. Many students interested in the life sciences also explore nursing programs due to high demand and competitive salaries.

For those aiming for a fast track into nursing, cheapest online accelerated bsn programs can help you earn a Bachelor of Science in Nursing quickly and affordably—even for non-nurses looking to change careers. If you’re already a registered nurse, the fastest rn to bsn program options let you upgrade your qualifications in as little as 6 months.

Advancing further, many with a molecular or biological science background pursue nurse practitioner roles. Curious about next steps? Learn how long does it take to become a nurse practitioner—training durations can vary depending on your current qualifications and chosen specialty.

For those interested in mental health, demand for psychiatric nurse practitioners is rising. See the latest dnp pmhnp salary insights by state to explore this rewarding, well-compensated career path.

Best Scientists Citing Alicia Clum

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles