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 *

338 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22273519)

  • 1. Long-term response to genomic selection: effects of estimation method and reference population structure for different genetic architectures.
    Bastiaansen JW; Coster A; Calus MP; van Arendonk JA; Bovenhuis H
    Genet Sel Evol; 2012 Jan; 44(1):3. PubMed ID: 22273519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. The Impact of Genomic and Traditional Selection on the Contribution of Mutational Variance to Long-Term Selection Response and Genetic Variance.
    Mulder HA; Lee SH; Clark S; Hayes BJ; van der Werf JHJ
    Genetics; 2019 Oct; 213(2):361-378. PubMed ID: 31431471
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. The importance of information on relatives for the prediction of genomic breeding values and the implications for the makeup of reference data sets in livestock breeding schemes.
    Clark SA; Hickey JM; Daetwyler HD; van der Werf JH
    Genet Sel Evol; 2012 Feb; 44(1):4. PubMed ID: 22321529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Allele frequency changes due to hitch-hiking in genomic selection programs.
    Liu H; Sørensen AC; Meuwissen TH; Berg P
    Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Feb; 46(1):8. PubMed ID: 24495634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Genomic selection requires genomic control of inbreeding.
    Sonesson AK; Woolliams JA; Meuwissen TH
    Genet Sel Evol; 2012 Aug; 44(1):27. PubMed ID: 22898324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Economic aspects of implementing genomic evaluations in a pig sire line breeding scheme.
    Tribout T; Larzul C; Phocas F
    Genet Sel Evol; 2013 Oct; 45(1):40. PubMed ID: 24127883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Genomic selection in dairy cattle simulated populations.
    Seno LO; Guidolin DGF; Aspilcueta-Borquis RR; Nascimento GBD; Silva TBRD; Oliveira HN; Munari DP
    J Dairy Res; 2018 May; 85(2):125-132. PubMed ID: 29785919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Multi-generational imputation of single nucleotide polymorphism marker genotypes and accuracy of genomic selection.
    Toghiani S; Aggrey SE; Rekaya R
    Animal; 2016 Jul; 10(7):1077-85. PubMed ID: 27076192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Performances of Adaptive MultiBLUP, Bayesian regressions, and weighted-GBLUP approaches for genomic predictions in Belgian Blue beef cattle.
    Gualdrón Duarte JL; Gori AS; Hubin X; Lourenco D; Charlier C; Misztal I; Druet T
    BMC Genomics; 2020 Aug; 21(1):545. PubMed ID: 32762654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Across population genomic prediction scenarios in which Bayesian variable selection outperforms GBLUP.
    van den Berg S; Calus MP; Meuwissen TH; Wientjes YC
    BMC Genet; 2015 Dec; 16():146. PubMed ID: 26698836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Pedigree relationships to control inbreeding in optimum-contribution selection realise more genetic gain than genomic relationships.
    Henryon M; Liu H; Berg P; Su G; Nielsen HM; Gebregiwergis GT; Sørensen AC
    Genet Sel Evol; 2019 Jul; 51(1):39. PubMed ID: 31286868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of genomic predictions using genomic relationship matrices built with different weighting factors to account for locus-specific variances.
    Su G; Christensen OF; Janss L; Lund MS
    J Dairy Sci; 2014 Oct; 97(10):6547-59. PubMed ID: 25129495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Upweighting rare favourable alleles increases long-term genetic gain in genomic selection programs.
    Liu H; Meuwissen TH; Sørensen AC; Berg P
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Mar; 47(1):19. PubMed ID: 25886296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. An efficient unified model for genome-wide association studies and genomic selection.
    Li H; Su G; Jiang L; Bao Z
    Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Aug; 49(1):64. PubMed ID: 28836943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Impact and utility of shallow pedigree using single-step genomic BLUP for prediction of unbiased genomic breeding values.
    Gowane GR; Alex R; Mukherjee A; Vohra V
    Trop Anim Health Prod; 2022 Oct; 54(6):339. PubMed ID: 36210357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.