Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0
- Journal
- Molecular Plant Pathology
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12682 →Countries where authors are citing Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0
This map shows the geographic impact of Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0. 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 Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0 with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0 more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0
This network shows the impact of Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0.
About Improved prediction of fungal effector proteins from secretomes with EffectorP 2.0
This paper, published in 2018, received 278 indexed citations . Written by Jana Sperschneider, Peter N. Dodds, Donald M. Gardiner, Karam B. Singh and Jennifer M. Taylor covering the research area of Plant Science and Cell Biology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Plant Science (260 citations), Cell Biology (130 citations) and Molecular Biology (87 citations). Published in Molecular Plant Pathology.
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/10.1111/mpp.12682.