These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

298 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16387880)

  • 1. The power of single-nucleotide polymorphisms for large-scale parentage inference.
    Anderson EC; Garza JC
    Genetics; 2006 Apr; 172(4):2567-82. PubMed ID: 16387880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Large-scale parentage inference with SNPs: an efficient algorithm for statistical confidence of parent pair allocations.
    Anderson EC
    Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol; 2012 Nov; 11(5):. PubMed ID: 23152426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Using genomic relationship likelihood for parentage assignment.
    Grashei KE; Ødegård J; Meuwissen THE
    Genet Sel Evol; 2018 May; 50(1):26. PubMed ID: 29776335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Selection and implementation of single nucleotide polymorphism markers for parentage analysis in crossbred cattle population.
    Hu LR; Li D; Chu Q; Wang YC; Zhou L; Yu Y; Zhang Y; Zhang SL; Usman T; Xie ZQ; Hou SY; Liu L; Shi WH
    Animal; 2021 Jan; 15(1):100066. PubMed ID: 33516033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Analytical and statistical consideration on the use of the ISAG-ICAR-SNP bovine panel for parentage control, using the Illumina BeadChip technology: example on the German Holstein population.
    Schütz E; Brenig B
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Feb; 47(1):3. PubMed ID: 25651826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Bayesian pedigree inference with small numbers of single nucleotide polymorphisms via a factor-graph representation.
    Anderson EC; Ng TC
    Theor Popul Biol; 2016 Feb; 107():39-51. PubMed ID: 26450523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. APIS: An auto-adaptive parentage inference software that tolerates missing parents.
    Griot R; Allal F; Brard-Fudulea S; Morvezen R; Haffray P; Phocas F; Vandeputte M
    Mol Ecol Resour; 2020 Mar; 20(2):579-590. PubMed ID: 31609085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effects of genotyping errors on parentage exclusion analysis.
    Wang J
    Mol Ecol; 2010 Nov; 19(22):5061-78. PubMed ID: 20964757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bayesian parentage analysis with systematic accountability of genotyping error, missing data and false matching.
    Christie MR; Tennessen JA; Blouin MS
    Bioinformatics; 2013 Mar; 29(6):725-32. PubMed ID: 23365409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. On marker-based parentage verification via non-linear optimization.
    Boerner V
    Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Jun; 49(1):50. PubMed ID: 28619083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Relative accuracy of three common methods of parentage analysis in natural populations.
    Harrison HB; Saenz-Agudelo P; Planes S; Jones GP; Berumen ML
    Mol Ecol; 2013 Feb; 22(4):1158-70. PubMed ID: 23278953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Maximum likelihood parentage assignment using quantitative genotypes.
    Hamilton MG
    Heredity (Edinb); 2021 Jun; 126(6):884-895. PubMed ID: 33692533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An empirical comparison of SNPs and microsatellites for parentage and kinship assignment in a wild sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) population.
    Hauser L; Baird M; Hilborn R; Seeb LW; Seeb JE
    Mol Ecol Resour; 2011 Mar; 11 Suppl 1():150-61. PubMed ID: 21429171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A bioinformatic pipeline for identifying informative SNP panels for parentage assignment from RADseq data.
    Andrews KR; Adams JR; Cassirer EF; Plowright RK; Gardner C; Dwire M; Hohenlohe PA; Waits LP
    Mol Ecol Resour; 2018 Nov; 18(6):1263-1281. PubMed ID: 29870119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Parentage and sibship exclusions: higher statistical power with more family members.
    Wang J
    Heredity (Edinb); 2007 Aug; 99(2):205-17. PubMed ID: 17487215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Testing for association with a case-parents design in the presence of genotyping errors.
    Morris RW; Kaplan NL
    Genet Epidemiol; 2004 Feb; 26(2):142-54. PubMed ID: 14748014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The aunt and uncle effect: an empirical evaluation of the confounding influence of full sibs of parents on pedigree reconstruction.
    Olsen JB; Busack C; Britt J; Bentzen P
    J Hered; 2001; 92(3):243-7. PubMed ID: 11447239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A coalescent-based method for population tree inference with haplotypes.
    Wu Y
    Bioinformatics; 2015 Mar; 31(5):691-8. PubMed ID: 25344500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The potential costs of accounting for genotypic errors in molecular parentage analyses.
    Morrissey MB; Wilson AJ
    Mol Ecol; 2005 Nov; 14(13):4111-21. PubMed ID: 16262862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. FRANz: reconstruction of wild multi-generation pedigrees.
    Riester M; Stadler PF; Klemm K
    Bioinformatics; 2009 Aug; 25(16):2134-9. PubMed ID: 19202194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.