142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20040081)
1. Persistence of accuracy of genome-wide breeding values over generations when including a polygenic effect.
Solberg TR; Sonesson AK; Woolliams JA; Odegard J; Meuwissen TH
Genet Sel Evol; 2009 Dec; 41(1):53. PubMed ID: 20040081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Use of a Bayesian model including QTL markers increases prediction reliability when test animals are distant from the reference population.
Ma P; Lund MS; Aamand GP; Su G
J Dairy Sci; 2019 Aug; 102(8):7237-7247. PubMed ID: 31155255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Efficiency of genomic selection using Bayesian multi-marker models for traits selected to reflect a wide range of heritabilities and frequencies of detected quantitative traits loci in mice.
Kapell DN; Sorensen D; Su G; Janss LL; Ashworth CJ; Roehe R
BMC Genet; 2012 May; 13():42. PubMed ID: 22651804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Genomic selection using different marker types and densities.
Solberg TR; Sonesson AK; Woolliams JA; Meuwissen TH
J Anim Sci; 2008 Oct; 86(10):2447-54. PubMed ID: 18407980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Accuracy of genomic selection for a sib-evaluated trait using identity-by-state and identity-by-descent relationships.
Vela-Avitúa S; Meuwissen TH; Luan T; Ødegård J
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Feb; 47(1):9. PubMed ID: 25888184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Accuracy of breeding values when using and ignoring the polygenic effect in genomic breeding value estimation with a marker density of one SNP per cM.
Calus MP; Veerkamp RF
J Anim Breed Genet; 2007 Dec; 124(6):362-8. PubMed ID: 18076473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Impacts of both reference population size and inclusion of a residual polygenic effect on the accuracy of genomic prediction.
Liu Z; Seefried FR; Reinhardt F; Rensing S; Thaller G; Reents R
Genet Sel Evol; 2011 May; 43(1):19. PubMed ID: 21586131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Breeding value estimation for fat percentage using dense markers on Bos taurus autosome 14.
de Roos AP; Schrooten C; Mullaart E; Calus MP; Veerkamp RF
J Dairy Sci; 2007 Oct; 90(10):4821-9. PubMed ID: 17881705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters.
Muir WM
J Anim Breed Genet; 2007 Dec; 124(6):342-55. PubMed ID: 18076471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Accuracy of prediction of simulated polygenic phenotypes and their underlying quantitative trait loci genotypes using real or imputed whole-genome markers in cattle.
Hassani S; Saatchi M; Fernando RL; Garrick DJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Dec; 47():99. PubMed ID: 26698091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Marker assisted selection for the improvement of two antagonistic traits under mixed inheritance.
Verrier E
Genet Sel Evol; 2001; 33(1):17-38. PubMed ID: 11268312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Benefits from marker-assisted selection under an additive polygenic genetic model.
Villanueva B; Pong-Wong R; Fernández J; Toro MA
J Anim Sci; 2005 Aug; 83(8):1747-52. PubMed ID: 16024693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Variable selection models for genomic selection using whole-genome sequence data and singular value decomposition.
Meuwissen THE; Indahl UG; Ødegård J
Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Dec; 49(1):94. PubMed ID: 29281962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Reducing dimensionality for prediction of genome-wide breeding values.
Solberg TR; Sonesson AK; Woolliams JA; Meuwissen TH
Genet Sel Evol; 2009 Mar; 41(1):29. PubMed ID: 19296851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Linkage disequilibrium and selection response in two-stage marker-assisted selection of dairy cattle over several generations.
Schulman NF; Dentine MR
J Anim Breed Genet; 2005 Apr; 122(2):110-6. PubMed ID: 16130477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
