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 *

649 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]
    of 33.