Monodansylcadaverine (MDC) is a specific in vivo marker for autophagic vacuoles.
- Journal
- PubMed
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w57749400 →Countries where authors are citing Monodansylcadaverine (MDC) is a specific in vivo marker for autophagic vacuoles.
This map shows the geographic impact of Monodansylcadaverine (MDC) is a specific in vivo marker for autophagic vacuoles.. 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 Monodansylcadaverine (MDC) is a specific in vivo marker for autophagic vacuoles. with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Monodansylcadaverine (MDC) is a specific in vivo marker for autophagic vacuoles. more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Monodansylcadaverine (MDC) is a specific in vivo marker for autophagic vacuoles.
This network shows the impact of Monodansylcadaverine (MDC) is a specific in vivo marker for autophagic vacuoles.. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Monodansylcadaverine (MDC) is a specific in vivo marker for autophagic vacuoles..
About Monodansylcadaverine (MDC) is a specific in vivo marker for autophagic vacuoles.
This paper, published in 1995, received 647 indexed citations . Written by Annette Biederbick, H. Kern and Hans‐Peter Elsässer covering the research area of Epidemiology and Cell Biology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Epidemiology (435 citations), Molecular Biology (300 citations) and Cell Biology (106 citations). Published in PubMed.
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/w57749400.