Fluorogenic probes for live-cell imaging of the cytoskeleton
Impact in
- Biophysics 243
Classified as
- Journal
- Nature Methods
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2972 →Countries where authors are citing Fluorogenic probes for live-cell imaging of the cytoskeleton
This map shows the geographic impact of Fluorogenic probes for live-cell imaging of the cytoskeleton. 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 Fluorogenic probes for live-cell imaging of the cytoskeleton with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Fluorogenic probes for live-cell imaging of the cytoskeleton more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Fluorogenic probes for live-cell imaging of the cytoskeleton
This network shows the impact of Fluorogenic probes for live-cell imaging of the cytoskeleton. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Fluorogenic probes for live-cell imaging of the cytoskeleton.
About Fluorogenic probes for live-cell imaging of the cytoskeleton
This paper, published in 2014, received 632 indexed citations . Written by Gražvydas Lukinavičius, Luc Reymond, Elisa D’Este, Anastasiya Masharina, Fabian Göttfert, Haisen Ta, Stefano Rizzo, Herbert Waldmann, Claudia Blaukopf and Christoph Sommer covering the research area of Structural Biology and Biophysics. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Molecular Biology (280 citations), Biophysics (243 citations), Cell Biology (225 citations), Biomedical Engineering (99 citations) and Organic Chemistry (70 citations). Published in Nature Methods.
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.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2972.