439 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20105297)
1. Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped.
Christensen OF; Lund MS
Genet Sel Evol; 2010 Jan; 42(1):2. PubMed ID: 20105297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two single-step blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population.
Gao H; Christensen OF; Madsen P; Nielsen US; Zhang Y; Lund MS; Su G
Genet Sel Evol; 2012 Jul; 44(1):8. PubMed ID: 22455934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of genomic predictions for lowly heritable traits using multi-step and single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in Holstein cattle.
Guarini AR; Lourenco DAL; Brito LF; Sargolzaei M; Baes CF; Miglior F; Misztal I; Schenkel FS
J Dairy Sci; 2018 Sep; 101(9):8076-8086. PubMed ID: 29935829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Genomic predictions based on animal models using genotype imputation on a national scale in Norwegian Red cattle.
Meuwissen TH; Svendsen M; Solberg T; Ødegård J
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Oct; 47():79. PubMed ID: 26464226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Impact of genotyping strategy on the accuracy of genomic prediction in simulated populations of purebred swine.
Li X; Zhang Z; Liu X; Chen Y
Animal; 2019 Sep; 13(9):1804-1810. PubMed ID: 30616709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The impact of selective genotyping on the response to selection using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction.
Howard JT; Rathje TA; Bruns CE; Wilson-Wells DF; Kachman SD; Spangler ML
J Anim Sci; 2018 Nov; 96(11):4532-4542. PubMed ID: 30107560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Controlling bias in genomic breeding values for young genotyped bulls.
Tsuruta S; Lourenco DAL; Masuda Y; Misztal I; Lawlor TJ
J Dairy Sci; 2019 Nov; 102(11):9956-9970. PubMed ID: 31495630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Are evaluations on young genotyped animals benefiting from the past generations?
Lourenco DA; Misztal I; Tsuruta S; Aguilar I; Lawlor TJ; Forni S; Weller JI
J Dairy Sci; 2014; 97(6):3930-42. PubMed ID: 24679931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Domestic estimated breeding values and genomic enhanced breeding values of bulls in comparison with their foreign genomic enhanced breeding values.
Přibyl J; Bauer J; Čermák V; Pešek P; Přibylová J; Šplíchal J; Vostrá-Vydrová H; Vostrý L; Zavadilová L
Animal; 2015 Oct; 9(10):1635-42. PubMed ID: 26133272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Technical note: Methods for interim prediction of single-step breeding values for young animals.
Pimentel ECG; Edel C; Emmerling R; Götz KU
J Dairy Sci; 2019 Apr; 102(4):3266-3273. PubMed ID: 30799116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. An efficient exact method to obtain GBLUP and single-step GBLUP when the genomic relationship matrix is singular.
Fernando RL; Cheng H; Garrick DJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Oct; 48(1):80. PubMed ID: 27788669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Detecting effective starting point of genomic selection by divergent trends from best linear unbiased prediction and single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction in pigs, beef cattle, and broilers.
Abdollahi-Arpanahi R; Lourenco D; Misztal I
J Anim Sci; 2021 Sep; 99(9):. PubMed ID: 34390341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Genetic evaluation with major genes and polygenic inheritance when some animals are not genotyped using gene content multiple-trait BLUP.
Legarra A; Vitezica ZG
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Nov; 47():89. PubMed ID: 26576649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Single-step genomic prediction of fruit-quality traits using phenotypic records of non-genotyped relatives in citrus.
Imai A; Kuniga T; Yoshioka T; Nonaka K; Mitani N; Fukamachi H; Hiehata N; Yamamoto M; Hayashi T
PLoS One; 2019; 14(8):e0221880. PubMed ID: 31465502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Genomic prediction ability for beef fatty acid profile in Nelore cattle using different pseudo-phenotypes.
Chiaia HLJ; Peripolli E; de Oliveira Silva RM; Feitosa FLB; de Lemos MVA; Berton MP; Olivieri BF; Espigolan R; Tonussi RL; Gordo DGM; de Albuquerque LG; de Oliveira HN; Ferrinho AM; Mueller LF; Kluska S; Tonhati H; Pereira ASC; Aguilar I; Baldi F
J Appl Genet; 2018 Nov; 59(4):493-501. PubMed ID: 30251238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Empirical comparison between different methods for genomic prediction of number of piglets born alive in moderate sized breeding populations.
Fangmann A; Sharifi RA; Heinkel J; Danowski K; Schrade H; Erbe M; Simianer H
J Anim Sci; 2017 Apr; 95(4):1434-1443. PubMed ID: 28464085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Improving accuracy of direct and maternal genetic effects in genomic evaluations using pooled boar semen: a simulation study1.
Maiorano AM; Assen A; Bijma P; Chen CY; Silva JAIV; Herring WO; Tsuruta S; Misztal I; Lourenco DAL
J Anim Sci; 2019 Jul; 97(8):3237-3245. PubMed ID: 31240314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Genomic prediction for Nordic Red Cattle using one-step and selection index blending.
Su G; Madsen P; Nielsen US; Mäntysaari EA; Aamand GP; Christensen OF; Lund MS
J Dairy Sci; 2012 Feb; 95(2):909-17. PubMed ID: 22281355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
