Sulforhodamine 101 as a specific marker of astroglia in the neocortex in vivo
- Journal
- Nature Methods
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1038/nmeth706 →Countries where authors are citing Sulforhodamine 101 as a specific marker of astroglia in the neocortex in vivo
This map shows the geographic impact of Sulforhodamine 101 as a specific marker of astroglia in the neocortex in vivo. 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 Sulforhodamine 101 as a specific marker of astroglia in the neocortex in vivo with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Sulforhodamine 101 as a specific marker of astroglia in the neocortex in vivo more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Sulforhodamine 101 as a specific marker of astroglia in the neocortex in vivo
This network shows the impact of Sulforhodamine 101 as a specific marker of astroglia in the neocortex in vivo. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Sulforhodamine 101 as a specific marker of astroglia in the neocortex in vivo.
About Sulforhodamine 101 as a specific marker of astroglia in the neocortex in vivo
This paper, published in 2004, received 634 indexed citations . Written by Axel Nimmerjahn, Frank Kirchhoff, Jason N. D. Kerr and Fritjof Helmchen covering the research area of Neurology, Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience and Developmental Neuroscience. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience (445 citations), Cognitive Neuroscience (212 citations) and Molecular Biology (209 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/nmeth706.