World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Molecular Biology 51 2479 2238 43 39 78 14133

Massimo Lopes publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Massimo Lopes between 1998 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Massimo Lopes published across 28 years, from 1998 to 2025, averaging 3.6 papers a year. Output peaked at 11 publications in 2023. 14 of the 100 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
2 4 6 8 10
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1998 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 11. Peak 11 publications in 2023. 1998: 1 publication 1999: 1 publication 2000: 2 publications 2001: 1 publication 2002: 1 publication 2003: 1 publication 2004: 1 publication 2005: 2 publications 2006: 2 publications 2007: 1 publication 2008: 0 publications 2009: 1 publication 2010: 2 publications 2011: 2 publications 2012: 2 publications 2013: 5 publications 2014: 5 publications 2015: 7 publications 2016: 5 publications 2017: 6 publications 2018: 6 publications 2019: 2 publications 2020: 7 publications 2021: 3 publications 2022: 9 publications 2023: 11 publications 2024: 7 publications 2025: 7 publications
1998 2025

100 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Massimo Lopes: publications per year, 1998 to 2025
Year Publications
1998 1
1999 1
2000 2
2001 1
2002 1
2003 1
2004 1
2005 2
2006 2
2007 1
2008 0
2009 1
2010 2
2011 2
2012 2
2013 5
2014 5
2015 7
2016 5
2017 6
2018 6
2019 2
2020 7
2021 3
2022 9
2023 11
2024 7
2025 7
Total 100
Download as CSV

Massimo Lopes publication distribution in Molecular Biology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Molecular Biology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Massimo Lopes sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
50 100 150
Bar chart with 53 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 47–56 to 564+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 177. Most scientists, 177, have 117–126 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 564 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 77–86 publications, is where this scientist sits. 47–56 publications: 7 scientists 57–66 publications: 17 scientists 67–76 publications: 65 scientists 77–86 publications: 90 scientists 87–96 publications: 125 scientists 97–106 publications: 131 scientists 107–116 publications: 162 scientists 117–126 publications: 177 scientists 127–136 publications: 158 scientists 137–146 publications: 158 scientists 147–156 publications: 146 scientists 157–166 publications: 159 scientists 167–176 publications: 131 scientists 177–186 publications: 110 scientists 187–196 publications: 112 scientists 197–206 publications: 100 scientists 207–216 publications: 89 scientists 217–226 publications: 98 scientists 227–236 publications: 74 scientists 237–246 publications: 72 scientists 247–256 publications: 63 scientists 257–266 publications: 53 scientists 267–276 publications: 54 scientists 277–286 publications: 49 scientists 287–296 publications: 52 scientists 297–306 publications: 43 scientists 307–316 publications: 46 scientists 317–326 publications: 41 scientists 327–336 publications: 42 scientists 337–346 publications: 31 scientists 347–356 publications: 28 scientists 357–366 publications: 29 scientists 367–376 publications: 26 scientists 377–386 publications: 24 scientists 387–396 publications: 24 scientists 397–406 publications: 14 scientists 407–416 publications: 13 scientists 417–426 publications: 20 scientists 427–436 publications: 12 scientists 437–446 publications: 20 scientists 447–456 publications: 11 scientists 457–466 publications: 10 scientists 467–476 publications: 14 scientists 477–486 publications: 14 scientists 487–496 publications: 10 scientists 497–506 publications: 13 scientists 507–516 publications: 13 scientists 517–526 publications: 2 scientists 527–536 publications: 4 scientists 537–546 publications: 6 scientists 547–556 publications: 8 scientists 557–563 publications: 6 scientists 564+ publications: 100 scientists
47–56 publications 564+

This scientist: 78 publications — 3rd percentile

3% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 564 publications or more.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Molecular Biology scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 3,076 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
47–56 7
57–66 17
67–76 65
77–86 90 78
87–96 125
97–106 131
107–116 162
117–126 177
127–136 158
137–146 158
147–156 146
157–166 159
167–176 131
177–186 110
187–196 112
197–206 100
207–216 89
217–226 98
227–236 74
237–246 72
247–256 63
257–266 53
267–276 54
277–286 49
287–296 52
297–306 43
307–316 46
317–326 41
327–336 42
337–346 31
347–356 28
357–366 29
367–376 26
377–386 24
387–396 24
397–406 14
407–416 13
417–426 20
427–436 12
437–446 20
447–456 11
457–466 10
467–476 14
477–486 14
487–496 10
497–506 13
507–516 13
517–526 2
527–536 4
537–546 6
547–556 8
557–563 6
564+ 100
Download as CSV

Massimo Lopes D-index placement in Molecular Biology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Molecular Biology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Massimo Lopes sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
25 50 75 100 125
Bar chart with 54 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 40–41 to 145+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 131. Most scientists, 131, have 64–65 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 145 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 50–51 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 40–41 D-Index: 36 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 101 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 115 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 121 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 118 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 130 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 106 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 116 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 113 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 129 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 120 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 105 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 131 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 95 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 97 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 106 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 83 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 89 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 77 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 70 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 73 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 60 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 48 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 45 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 50 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 31 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 51 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 43 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 38 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 39 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 41 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 29 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 33 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 35 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 20 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 38 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 19 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 28 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 13 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 23 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 16 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 15 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 11 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 21 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 7 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 13 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 14 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 17 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 9 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 8 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 16 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 7 scientists 144 D-Index: 7 scientists 145+ D-Index: 100 scientists
40–41 D-Index 145+

This scientist: 51 D-Index — 20th percentile

20% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 145 D-Index or more.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Molecular Biology scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 3,076 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
40–41 36
42–43 101
44–45 115
46–47 121
48–49 118
50–51 130 51
52–53 106
54–55 116
56–57 113
58–59 129
60–61 120
62–63 105
64–65 131
66–67 95
68–69 97
70–71 106
72–73 83
74–75 89
76–77 77
78–79 70
80–81 73
82–83 60
84–85 48
86–87 45
88–89 50
90–91 31
92–93 51
94–95 43
96–97 38
98–99 39
100–101 41
102–103 29
104–105 33
106–107 35
108–109 20
110–111 38
112–113 19
114–115 28
116–117 13
118–119 23
120–121 16
122–123 15
124–125 11
126–127 21
128–129 7
130–131 13
132–133 14
134–135 17
136–137 9
138–139 8
140–141 16
142–143 7
144 7
145+ 100
Download as CSV

Overview

Massimo Lopes is affiliated with the University of Zurich in Switzerland. Their research primarily focuses on biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology, with a substantial body of work in medicine. Their studies delve into various subfields such as molecular biology, oncology, hematology, genetics, and cell biology.

The main themes in Lopes' research address DNA repair mechanisms, PARP inhibition in cancer therapy, CRISPR and genetic engineering, genomics and chromatin dynamics, cancer-related molecular pathways, RNA research and splicing, as well as epigenetics and DNA methylation.

Some of their recent publications include the following:

  • The plasticity of DNA replication forks in response to clinically relevant genotoxic stress, 2020, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology
  • HLTF Promotes Fork Reversal, Limiting Replication Stress Resistance and Preventing Multiple Mechanisms of Unrestrained DNA Synthesis, 2020, Molecular Cell
  • Sequential role of RAD51 paralog complexes in replication fork remodeling and restart, 2020, Nature Communications
  • PrimPol-mediated repriming facilitates replication traverse of DNA interstrand crosslinks, 2021, The EMBO Journal
  • Direct visualization of transcription-replication conflicts reveals post-replicative DNA:RNA hybrids, 2023, Nature Structural & Molecular Biology

Lopes collaborates frequently with a group of researchers including:

  • Andrea Sanchi
  • Jana Krietsch
  • Daniel González-Acosta
  • Henriette Stoy
  • Jonas Schmid

Their work has been published recurrently in venues such as bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), Nature Communications, Molecular Cell, The EMBO Journal, and Nucleic Acids Research.

Best Publications

  • Fork Reversal and ssDNA Accumulation at Stalled Replication Forks Owing to Checkpoint Defects

    José M. Sogo;Massimo Lopes;Marco Foiani

  • The DNA replication checkpoint response stabilizes stalled replication forks

    Massimo Lopes;Cecilia Cotta-Ramusino;Achille Pellicioli;Giordano Liberi

  • Multiple mechanisms control chromosome integrity after replication fork uncoupling and restart at irreparable UV lesions.

    Massimo Lopes;Marco Foiani;José M. Sogo

  • Rad51-mediated replication fork reversal is a global response to genotoxic treatments in human cells

    Ralph Zellweger;Damian Dalcher;Karun Mutreja;Matteo Berti

  • Replication fork reversal in eukaryotes: from dead end to dynamic response.

    Kai J. Neelsen;Massimo Lopes

  • Rad51 protects nascent DNA from Mre11-dependent degradation and promotes continuous DNA synthesis

    Yoshitami Hashimoto;Arnab Ray Chaudhuri;Massimo Lopes;Vincenzo Costanzo

  • Topoisomerase I poisoning results in PARP-mediated replication fork reversal

    Arnab Ray Chaudhuri;Yoshitami Hashimoto;Raquel Herrador;Kai J Neelsen

  • Activation of Rad53 kinase in response to DNA damage and its effect in modulating phosphorylation of the lagging strand DNA polymerase

    Achille Pellicioli;Chiara Lucca;Giordano Liberi;Federica Marini;Federica Marini

  • Human RECQ1 promotes restart of replication forks reversed by DNA topoisomerase I inhibition

    Matteo Berti;Arnab Ray Chaudhuri;Saravanabhavan Thangavel;Shivasankari Gomathinayagam

  • Rad51-dependent DNA structures accumulate at damaged replication forks in sgs1 mutants defective in the yeast ortholog of BLM RecQ helicase.

    Giordano Liberi;Giulio Maffioletti;Chiara Lucca;Irene Chiolo

  • Carcinogenic bacterial pathogen Helicobacter pylori triggers DNA double-strand breaks and a DNA damage response in its host cells.

    Isabella M. Toller;Kai J. Neelsen;Martin Steger;Mara L. Hartung

  • DNA2 drives processing and restart of reversed replication forks in human cells

    Saravanabhavan Thangavel;Matteo Berti;Maryna Levikova;Cosimo Pinto

  • Replication Fork Reversal Triggers Fork Degradation in BRCA2-defective Cells

    Sofija Mijic;Ralph Zellweger;Nagaraja Chappidi;Matteo Berti

  • Exo1 Processes Stalled Replication Forks and Counteracts Fork Reversal in Checkpoint-Defective Cells

    Cecilia Cotta-Ramusino;Daniele Fachinetti;Chiara Lucca;Ylli Doksani

  • Selective Loss of PARG Restores PARylation and Counteracts PARP Inhibitor-Mediated Synthetic Lethality

    Ewa Gogola;Alexandra A. Duarte;Julian R. de Ruiter;Wouter W. Wiegant

  • Chronic p53-independent p21 expression causes genomic instability by deregulating replication licensing

    Panagiotis Galanos;Konstantinos Vougas;David Walter;Alexander Polyzos

  • The plasticity of DNA replication forks in response to clinically relevant genotoxic stress

    Matteo Berti;David Cortez;Massimo Lopes

  • Pathogen-Induced TLR4-TRIF Innate Immune Signaling in Hematopoietic Stem Cells Promotes Proliferation but Reduces Competitive Fitness

    Hitoshi Takizawa;Hitoshi Takizawa;Kristin Fritsch;Larisa V. Kovtonyuk;Yasuyuki Saito

  • Oncogenes induce genotoxic stress by mitotic processing of unusual replication intermediates

    Kai J. Neelsen;Isabella M.Y. Zanini;Raquel Herrador;Massimo Lopes

  • Mismatch repair-dependent processing of methylation damage gives rise to persistent single-stranded gaps in newly replicated DNA

    Nina Mojas;Massimo Lopes;Josef Jiricny

Frequent Co-Authors

Marco Foiani
Marco Foiani University of Milan
Paolo Plevani
Paolo Plevani University of Milan
Jiri Bartek
Jiri Bartek Karolinska Institute
Alessandro Vindigni
Alessandro Vindigni Washington University in St. Louis
Josef Jiricny
Josef Jiricny University of Zurich
David Cortez
David Cortez Vanderbilt University
Vassilis G. Gorgoulis
Vassilis G. Gorgoulis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Sven Rottenberg
Sven Rottenberg University of Bern
David Shore
David Shore University of Geneva

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 Molecular Biology opens up diverse career options in research, healthcare, teaching, and industry. If you’re looking to expand your knowledge or switch fields, exploring online degrees can be a smart and flexible choice.

Some students look for the quickest cheapest masters degree to save time and money. While Molecular Biology is specialized, related areas like Library Science can offer affordable online paths, too. For instance, you might consider the cheapest library science degree online if you are interested in scientific data management or information science.

Careers in healthcare such as speech-language pathology can also align with biological sciences backgrounds. Look for asha accredited online slp master's programs if you want a healthcare-focused master's program. If your undergraduate degree isn’t in communication sciences, check out transition to SLP master’s for non-CSD majors programs built for a smooth career shift.

Online learning now offers flexible and affordable routes into many science and health-related careers, helping you expand your skills and improve your employability.

Best Scientists Citing Massimo Lopes

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles