World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Biology and Biochemistry

D-Index
52
Citations
8388
World Ranking
16821
National Ranking
6939

Daniel A. Casciano publication distribution in Biology and Biochemistry in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Biology and Biochemistry in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Daniel A. Casciano sits on this spectrum.

47–56 publications: 8 scientists 57–66 publications: 35 scientists 67–76 publications: 106 scientists 77–86 publications: 231 scientists 87–96 publications: 414 scientists 97–106 publications: 546 scientists 107–116 publications: 704 scientists 117–126 publications: 849 scientists 127–136 publications: 980 scientists 137–146 publications: 942 scientists 147–156 publications: 969 scientists 157–166 publications: 950 scientists 167–176 publications: 951 scientists 177–186 publications: 915 scientists 187–196 publications: 787 scientists 197–206 publications: 841 scientists 207–216 publications: 735 scientists 217–226 publications: 709 scientists 227–236 publications: 651 scientists 237–246 publications: 605 scientists 247–256 publications: 510 scientists 257–266 publications: 524 scientists 267–276 publications: 434 scientists 277–286 publications: 418 scientists 287–296 publications: 350 scientists 297–306 publications: 363 scientists 307–316 publications: 315 scientists 317–326 publications: 296 scientists 327–336 publications: 261 scientists 337–346 publications: 240 scientists 347–356 publications: 219 scientists 357–366 publications: 197 scientists 367–376 publications: 154 scientists 377–386 publications: 161 scientists 387–396 publications: 155 scientists 397–406 publications: 145 scientists 407–416 publications: 124 scientists 417–426 publications: 112 scientists 427–436 publications: 132 scientists 437–446 publications: 116 scientists 447–456 publications: 99 scientists 457–466 publications: 81 scientists 467–476 publications: 91 scientists 477–486 publications: 80 scientists 487–496 publications: 80 scientists 497–506 publications: 60 scientists 507–516 publications: 36 scientists 517–526 publications: 46 scientists 527–536 publications: 54 scientists 537–546 publications: 44 scientists 547–556 publications: 43 scientists 557–566 publications: 43 scientists 567–576 publications: 42 scientists 577–586 publications: 25 scientists 587–596 publications: 34 scientists 597–606 publications: 23 scientists 607–616 publications: 33 scientists 617–626 publications: 31 scientists 627–636 publications: 27 scientists 637–646 publications: 25 scientists 647–656 publications: 28 scientists 657–666 publications: 34 scientists 667–676 publications: 18 scientists 677–686 publications: 16 scientists 687–696 publications: 10 scientists 697–706 publications: 12 scientists 707–716 publications: 21 scientists 717–726 publications: 12 scientists 727–736 publications: 12 scientists 737–746 publications: 10 scientists 747–756 publications: 7 scientists 757–766 publications: 13 scientists 767–776 publications: 15 scientists 777–786 publications: 13 scientists 787–796 publications: 9 scientists 797–806 publications: 9 scientists 807–816 publications: 7 scientists 817–826 publications: 4 scientists 827–836 publications: 9 scientists 837–846 publications: 7 scientists 847–856 publications: 3 scientists 857–866 publications: 5 scientists 867–876 publications: 5 scientists 877–886 publications: 11 scientists 887–896 publications: 3 scientists 897–906 publications: 4 scientists 907–916 publications: 7 scientists 917–926 publications: 5 scientists 927–936 publications: 6 scientists 937–946 publications: 6 scientists 947–956 publications: 3 scientists 957–966 publications: 7 scientists 967–976 publications: 2 scientists 977–986 publications: 2 scientists 987–996 publications: 1 scientists 997–1,006 publications: 5 scientists 1,007–1,016 publications: 2 scientists 1,017–1,026 publications: 2 scientists 1,027 publications: 1 scientists 1,028+ publications: 100 scientists
47 publications 1,028+

This scientist: 204 publications — 51st percentile

51% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 1,028 publications or more.

Daniel A. Casciano D-index placement in Biology and Biochemistry in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Biology and Biochemistry scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Daniel A. Casciano sits on this spectrum.

40–41 D-Index: 80 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 183 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 317 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 504 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 718 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 900 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 1,026 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 1,150 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 1,236 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 1,253 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 1,163 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 1,131 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 1,032 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 897 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 814 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 715 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 709 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 596 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 512 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 473 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 412 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 373 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 358 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 285 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 273 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 227 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 208 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 193 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 153 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 157 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 148 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 120 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 113 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 100 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 86 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 67 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 72 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 73 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 64 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 53 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 60 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 54 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 43 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 38 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 49 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 26 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 18 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 23 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 32 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 32 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 27 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 19 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 22 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 12 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 16 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 14 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 10 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 13 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 10 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 7 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 9 scientists 162–163 D-Index: 13 scientists 164–165 D-Index: 4 scientists 166 D-Index: 4 scientists 167+ D-Index: 98 scientists
40 D-Index 167+

This scientist: 52 D-Index — 16th percentile

16% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 167 D-Index or more.

Overview

Daniel A. Casciano is affiliated with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on Environmental Science, with a particular emphasis on the subfield of Global and Planetary Change.

The main topics explored in their work include:

  • Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Flood Risk Assessment and Management
  • Forest Management and Policy

Casciano has contributed to the scientific literature with publications in the venue Climate Risk Management, where their recent paper titled Towards wildfire risk reduction goals and targets for Europe - Opportunities and challenges was published in 2025. This paper addresses wildfire risk reduction strategies within a European context.

Their network of frequent collaborators includes:

  • Claudia Berchtold
  • K. Petersen
  • Mariza Kaskara
  • M. Lucrecia Pettinari
  • Julie Nicole Vinders

These co-authors have contributed jointly on at least one publication with Casciano, indicating partnerships likely centered around themes related to environmental risk and management.

Research by Daniel A. Casciano intersects critical environmental challenges, covering ecosystem fire dynamics, flood risk, and forest policy. Their academic output is concentrated in reputable outlets focused on climate and environmental risk, which reflects the applied and interdisciplinary nature of their work within the broader field of Environmental Science.

Best Publications

  • Cytotoxicity Effects of Graphene and Single-Wall Carbon Nanotubes in Neural Phaeochromocytoma-Derived PC12 Cells

    Yongbin Zhang;Syed F. Ali;Enkeleda Dervishi;Yang Xu

  • ArrayTrack--supporting toxicogenomic research at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration National Center for Toxicological Research.

    Weida Tong;Xiaoxi Cao;Stephen Harris;Hongmei Sun

  • Cross-platform comparability of microarray technology: intra-platform consistency and appropriate data analysis procedures are essential.

    Leming Shi;Weida Tong;Hong Fang;Uwe Scherf

  • The use of Chinese hamster ovary cells to quantify specific locus mutation and to determine mutagenicity of chemicals. A report of the gene-tox program.

    A.W. Hsie;D.A. Casciano;D.B. Couch;D.F. Krahn

  • Rapid isolation of carcinogen-bound DNA and RNA by hydroxyapatite chromatography.

    Frederick A. Beland;Kenneth L. Dooley;Daniel A. Casciano

  • Comparison of basal gene expression profiles and effects of hepatocarcinogens on gene expression in cultured primary human hepatocytes and HepG2 cells.

    Angela J Harris;Stacey L Dial;Daniel A Casciano

  • Unscheduled DNA synthesis tests: A report of the U.S. environmental protection agency gene-tox program

    Ann D. Mitchell;Daniel A. Casciano;Martin L. Meltz;Douglas E. Robinson

  • Development of public toxicogenomics software for microarray data management and analysis.

    Weida Tong;Stephen Harris;Xiaoxi Cao;Hong Fang

  • QA/QC: challenges and pitfalls facing the microarray community and regulatory agencies

    Leming Shi;Weida Tong;Federico Goodsaid;Felix W Frueh

  • Creating context for the use of DNA adduct data in cancer risk assessment: I. Data organization.

    Annie M. Jarabek;Lynn H. Pottenger;Larry S. Andrews;Daniel Casciano

  • Induction of 6-thioguanine-resistant lymphocytes in Fischer 344 rats following in vivo exposure to N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea and cyclophosphamide.

    A. Aidoo;L. E. Lyn-Cook;R. A. Mittelstaedt;R. H. Heflich

  • In vivo transgenic mutation assays.

    John A. Heddle;Stephen Dean;Takehiko Nohmi;Michaël Boerrigter

  • Electrically Conductive Gold-Coated Collagen Nanofibers for Placental-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Enhanced Differentiation and Proliferation

    Anamaria Orza;Olga Soritau;Liliana Olenic;Mircea Diudea

  • Cytotoxicity and biological effects of functional nanomaterials delivered to various cell lines

    Meena Mahmood;Daniel A. Casciano;Teodora Mocan;Cornel Iancu

  • A protocol and guide for the in vitro rat hepatocyte DNA-repair assay

    Byron E. Butterworth;John Ashby;Edilberto Bermudez;Daniel Casciano

  • Effects of silver nanoparticles on human and rat embryonic neural stem cells

    Fang Liu;Meena Mahmood;Yang Xu;Fumiya Watanabe

  • HepG2 cells: an in vitro model for P450-dependent metabolism of acetaminophen.

    A.L. Roe;J.E. Snawder;R.W. Benson;D.W. Roberts

  • A study of the potential genotoxicity of methapyrilene and related antihistamines using the hepatocytes/DNA repair assay

    John D. Budroe;John D. Budroe;Joseph G. Shaddock;Daniel A. Casciano;Daniel A. Casciano

  • An FDA review of sulfamethazine toxicity.

    Lionel A. Poirier;Daniel R. Doerge;David W. Gaylor;Margaret A. Miller

  • Induction of stress proteins by electromagnetic fields in cultured HL-60 cells.

    J.L. Pipkin;W.G. Hinson;J.F. Young;K.L. Rowland

Frequent Co-Authors

Robert H. Heflich
Robert H. Heflich United States Food and Drug Administration
Alexandru S. Biris
Alexandru S. Biris University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Syed F. Ali
Syed F. Ali National Center for Toxicological Research
Peter P. Fu
Peter P. Fu United States Food and Drug Administration
Fred F. Kadlubar
Fred F. Kadlubar United States Food and Drug Administration
Frederick A. Beland
Frederick A. Beland National Center for Toxicological Research
Enkeleda Dervishi
Enkeleda Dervishi Los Alamos National Laboratory
Gary M. Williams
Gary M. Williams New York Medical College
Leming Shi
Leming Shi Fudan University
Alexandru R. Biris
Alexandru R. Biris University of Arkansas at Little Rock

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Studying Biology and Biochemistry in the USA opens doors to various online degree options and career pathways in allied health sciences. Many students pursue specialty fields such as medical imaging, nutrition, and patient care, which offer strong job prospects and flexible study formats.

For those interested in diagnostic technology, consider exploring an online ultrasound tech school, which prepares you for a rewarding role in medical imaging. If affordability is a key concern, you can compare the cheapest radiology tech programs that combine cost-effective tuition with job-ready skills.

Students with a passion for nutrition can look into advanced dietetic masters programs, which provide specialized training for a growing field. Additionally, if you are seeking a practical, patient-focused position, there are flexible medical assistant programs online Michigan students can access, often with financial aid options.

Exploring these online pathways can help you tailor your biology or biochemistry background toward specific healthcare careers, making your education both versatile and marketable.

Best Scientists Citing Daniel A. Casciano

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles