Daniela Sanges

1.0k citations
12 papers · 861 · h-index 12

Impact in

Papers in

Daniela Sanges

12 papers receiving 847 citations

Peers

Daniela Sanges
Comparison fields: 5 of 62
  • Ophthalmology 218
  • Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience 215
  • Molecular Biology 768
  • Developmental Neuroscience 37
  • Cell Biology 124
Replace Umberto Di Vicino with:
Umberto Di Vicino Italy
Sarah Decembrini Switzerland
Amelia Lane United Kingdom
Conor M. Ramsden United Kingdom
Thanh Hoang United States
Darin Zerti United Kingdom
Enrique Salero United States
Aimee V. Chappelow United States
Xing Zhao United States
Sophia Millington‐Ward Ireland
Daniela Sanges relative to Umberto Di Vicino Italy Umberto Di Vicino's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×1.5×1.8×
Umberto Di Vicino · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing papers authored by Daniela Sanges

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Daniela Sanges'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 Daniela Sanges with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Daniela Sanges more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Daniela Sanges

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Daniela Sanges. 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 Daniela Sanges. The network helps show where Daniela Sanges may publish in the future.

Co-authors

The 25 scholars most cited alongside Daniela Sanges, linked wherever they have co-authored with each other. Click a name or a connecting line to browse the papers they share.

Border = papers with Daniela Sanges Line = papers co-authored together Daniela Sanges links everyone, so they are left out of the graph.

All Works

12 of 12 papers shown
#Work
1 2006190
2 2007189
3 201375
4 200671
5 201163
6 201662
7 201455
8 201051
9 200738
10 201025
11 201823
12 201119

About Daniela Sanges

Daniela Sanges is a scholar working on Molecular Biology, Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience, Cell Biology, Developmental Neuroscience and Genetics, having authored 12 papers that have together received 861 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Retinal Development and Disorders (8 papers), Calpain Protease Function and Regulation (3 papers), Pluripotent Stem Cells Research (3 papers), CRISPR and Genetic Engineering (3 papers), Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms (3 papers), Virus-based gene therapy research (2 papers), Connexins and lens biology (1 paper) and Nerve injury and regeneration (1 paper). The work is most often cited by research in Ophthalmology (218 citations), Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience (215 citations), Molecular Biology (768 citations), Developmental Neuroscience (37 citations) and Cell Biology (124 citations). Daniela Sanges has collaborated with scholars based in Italy, Spain and United States. Frequent co-authors include Valeria Marigo, Antonella Comitato, Roberta Tammaro, Maria Pia Cosma, Umberto Di Vicino, Alberto Auricchio, Enrico Maria Surace, Claudio Mussolino, Neus Romo and Luk H. Vandenberghe. Their work appears in journals such as The International Journal of Developmental Biology, Human Molecular Genetics, EBioMedicine, Cell Reports and EMBO Molecular Medicine.

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