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 *

174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19224194)

  • 1. Marker-based estimation of the coefficient of coancestry in hybrid breeding programmes.
    Maenhout S; De Baets B; Haesaert G
    Theor Appl Genet; 2009 Apr; 118(6):1181-92. PubMed ID: 19224194
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. CoCoa: a software tool for estimating the coefficient of coancestry from multilocus genotype data.
    Maenhout S; De Baets B; Haesaert G
    Bioinformatics; 2009 Oct; 25(20):2753-4. PubMed ID: 19689961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Estimation of genealogical coancestry in plant species using a pedigree reconstruction algorithm and application to an oil palm breeding population.
    Cros D; Sánchez L; Cochard B; Samper P; Denis M; Bouvet JM; Fernández J
    Theor Appl Genet; 2014 Apr; 127(4):981-94. PubMed ID: 24504554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. COANCESTRY: a program for simulating, estimating and analysing relatedness and inbreeding coefficients.
    Wang J
    Mol Ecol Resour; 2011 Jan; 11(1):141-5. PubMed ID: 21429111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A note on the rationale for estimating genealogical coancestry from molecular markers.
    Toro MA; García-Cortés LA; Legarra A
    Genet Sel Evol; 2011 Jul; 43(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 21749687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of marker-based pairwise relatedness estimators on a pedigreed plant population.
    Bink MC; Anderson AD; van de Weg WE; Thompson EA
    Theor Appl Genet; 2008 Oct; 117(6):843-55. PubMed ID: 18592205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Shrinkage estimation of the realized relationship matrix.
    Endelman JB; Jannink JL
    G3 (Bethesda); 2012 Nov; 2(11):1405-13. PubMed ID: 23173092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Multilocus estimation of pairwise relatedness with dominant markers.
    Ritland K
    Mol Ecol; 2005 Sep; 14(10):3157-65. PubMed ID: 16101781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Long-term selection strategies for complex traits using high-density genetic markers.
    Kemper KE; Bowman PJ; Pryce JE; Hayes BJ; Goddard ME
    J Dairy Sci; 2012 Aug; 95(8):4646-56. PubMed ID: 22818479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. An alternative covariance estimator to investigate genetic heterogeneity in populations.
    Heslot N; Jannink JL
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Nov; 47():93. PubMed ID: 26612537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Positive assortative mating with selection restrictions on group coancestry enhances gain while conserving genetic diversity in long-term forest tree breeding.
    Rosvall O; Mullin TJ
    Theor Appl Genet; 2003 Aug; 107(4):629-42. PubMed ID: 12851766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Inbreeding, effective population size, and coancestry in the Latxa dairy sheep breed.
    Granado-Tajada I; Rodríguez-Ramilo ST; Legarra A; Ugarte E
    J Dairy Sci; 2020 Jun; 103(6):5215-5226. PubMed ID: 32253040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Optimum contribution selection in large general tree breeding populations with an application to Scots pine.
    Hallander J; Waldmann P
    Theor Appl Genet; 2009 Apr; 118(6):1133-42. PubMed ID: 19183858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparison of single-sample estimators of effective population sizes from genetic marker data.
    Wang J
    Mol Ecol; 2016 Oct; 25(19):4692-711. PubMed ID: 27288989
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Pedigrees or markers: Which are better in estimating relatedness and inbreeding coefficient?
    Wang J
    Theor Popul Biol; 2016 Feb; 107():4-13. PubMed ID: 26344786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. On the use of large marker panels to estimate inbreeding and relatedness: empirical and simulation studies of a pedigreed zebra finch population typed at 771 SNPs.
    Santure AW; Stapley J; Ball AD; Birkhead TR; Burke T; Slate J
    Mol Ecol; 2010 Apr; 19(7):1439-51. PubMed ID: 20149098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of genomic selection on rate of inbreeding and coancestry and effective population size of Holstein and Jersey cattle populations.
    Makanjuola BO; Miglior F; Abdalla EA; Maltecca C; Schenkel FS; Baes CF
    J Dairy Sci; 2020 Jun; 103(6):5183-5199. PubMed ID: 32278553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Maximizing the reliability of genomic selection by optimizing the calibration set of reference individuals: comparison of methods in two diverse groups of maize inbreds (Zea mays L.).
    Rincent R; Laloë D; Nicolas S; Altmann T; Brunel D; Revilla P; Rodríguez VM; Moreno-Gonzalez J; Melchinger A; Bauer E; Schoen CC; Meyer N; Giauffret C; Bauland C; Jamin P; Laborde J; Monod H; Flament P; Charcosset A; Moreau L
    Genetics; 2012 Oct; 192(2):715-28. PubMed ID: 22865733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Graph-based data selection for the construction of genomic prediction models.
    Maenhout S; De Baets B; Haesaert G
    Genetics; 2010 Aug; 185(4):1463-75. PubMed ID: 20479144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Optimised parent selection and minimum inbreeding mating in small aquaculture breeding schemes: a simulation study.
    Hely FS; Amer PR; Walker SP; Symonds JE
    Animal; 2013 Jan; 7(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 23031385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.