639 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18073436)
1. The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values.
Habier D; Fernando RL; Dekkers JC
Genetics; 2007 Dec; 177(4):2389-97. PubMed ID: 18073436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Genomic BLUP decoded: a look into the black box of genomic prediction.
Habier D; Fernando RL; Garrick DJ
Genetics; 2013 Jul; 194(3):597-607. PubMed ID: 23640517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A comparison of five methods to predict genomic breeding values of dairy bulls from genome-wide SNP markers.
Moser G; Tier B; Crump RE; Khatkar MS; Raadsma HW
Genet Sel Evol; 2009 Dec; 41(1):56. PubMed ID: 20043835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Factors affecting accuracy from genomic selection in populations derived from multiple inbred lines: a Barley case study.
Zhong S; Dekkers JC; Fernando RL; Jannink JL
Genetics; 2009 May; 182(1):355-64. PubMed ID: 19299342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle.
Habier D; Tetens J; Seefried FR; Lichtner P; Thaller G
Genet Sel Evol; 2010 Feb; 42(1):5. PubMed ID: 20170500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Different models of genetic variation and their effect on genomic evaluation.
Clark SA; Hickey JM; van der Werf JH
Genet Sel Evol; 2011 May; 43(1):18. PubMed ID: 21575265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Long-term impacts of genome-enabled selection.
Long N; Gianola D; Rosa GJ; Weigel KA
J Appl Genet; 2011 Nov; 52(4):467-80. PubMed ID: 21584728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Parameters affecting genome simulation for evaluating genomic selection method.
Nishio M; Satoh M
Anim Sci J; 2014 Oct; 85(10):879-87. PubMed ID: 24841444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A two-stage approximation for analysis of mixture genetic models in large pedigrees.
Habier D; Totir LR; Fernando RL
Genetics; 2010 Jun; 185(2):655-70. PubMed ID: 20382829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Genomic best linear unbiased prediction method reflecting the degree of linkage disequilibrium.
Nishio M; Satoh M
J Anim Breed Genet; 2015 Oct; 132(5):357-65. PubMed ID: 25866073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Using markers with large effect in genetic and genomic predictions.
Lopes MS; Bovenhuis H; van Son M; Nordbø Ø; Grindflek EH; Knol EF; Bastiaansen JW
J Anim Sci; 2017 Jan; 95(1):59-71. PubMed ID: 28177367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Accuracy of genomic selection in simulated populations mimicking the extent of linkage disequilibrium in beef cattle.
Brito FV; Neto JB; Sargolzaei M; Cobuci JA; Schenkel FS
BMC Genet; 2011 Sep; 12():80. PubMed ID: 21933416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Prediction of complex human traits using the genomic best linear unbiased predictor.
de Los Campos G; Vazquez AI; Fernando R; Klimentidis YC; Sorensen D
PLoS Genet; 2013; 9(7):e1003608. PubMed ID: 23874214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Genotype Imputation to Improve the Cost-Efficiency of Genomic Selection in Rabbits.
Mancin E; Sosa-Madrid BS; Blasco A; Ibáñez-Escriche N
Animals (Basel); 2021 Mar; 11(3):. PubMed ID: 33805619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accuracy of Genomic Prediction in Synthetic Populations Depending on the Number of Parents, Relatedness, and Ancestral Linkage Disequilibrium.
Schopp P; Müller D; Technow F; Melchinger AE
Genetics; 2017 Jan; 205(1):441-454. PubMed ID: 28049710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The Impact of Genetic Relationship and Linkage Disequilibrium on Genomic Selection.
Liu H; Zhou H; Wu Y; Li X; Zhao J; Zuo T; Zhang X; Zhang Y; Liu S; Shen Y; Lin H; Zhang Z; Huang K; Lübberstedt T; Pan G
PLoS One; 2015; 10(7):e0132379. PubMed ID: 26148055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Genomic selection using regularized linear regression models: ridge regression, lasso, elastic net and their extensions.
Ogutu JO; Schulz-Streeck T; Piepho HP
BMC Proc; 2012 May; 6 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S10. PubMed ID: 22640436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Resource allocation for maximizing prediction accuracy and genetic gain of genomic selection in plant breeding: a simulation experiment.
Lorenz AJ
G3 (Bethesda); 2013 Mar; 3(3):481-91. PubMed ID: 23450123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Contributions of linkage disequilibrium and co-segregation information to the accuracy of genomic prediction.
Sun X; Fernando R; Dekkers J
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Oct; 48(1):77. PubMed ID: 27729012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Extent and consistency of linkage disequilibrium and identification of DNA markers for production and egg quality traits in commercial layer chicken populations.
Abasht B; Sandford E; Arango J; Settar P; Fulton JE; O'Sullivan NP; Hassen A; Habier D; Fernando RL; Dekkers JC; Lamont SJ
BMC Genomics; 2009 Jul; 10 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S2. PubMed ID: 19607653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
