Cyclophilin and peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase are probably identical proteins
- Journal
- Nature
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1038/337476a0 →Countries where authors are citing Cyclophilin and peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase are probably identical proteins
This map shows the geographic impact of Cyclophilin and peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase are probably identical proteins. 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 Cyclophilin and peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase are probably identical proteins with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Cyclophilin and peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase are probably identical proteins more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Cyclophilin and peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase are probably identical proteins
This network shows the impact of Cyclophilin and peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase are probably identical proteins. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Cyclophilin and peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase are probably identical proteins.
About Cyclophilin and peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase are probably identical proteins
This paper, published in 1989, received 1.2k indexed citations . Written by Günter Fischer, Brigitte Wittmann‐Liebold, Kurt Lang and Franz X. Schmid covering the research area of Molecular Biology and Oncology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Molecular Biology (1.1k citations), Immunology (449 citations) and Oncology (343 citations). Published in Nature.
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/10.1038/337476a0.