252 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22717310)
1. Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs.
Christensen OF; Madsen P; Nielsen B; Ostersen T; Su G
Animal; 2012 Oct; 6(10):1565-71. PubMed ID: 22717310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score.
Aguilar I; Misztal I; Johnson DL; Legarra A; Tsuruta S; Lawlor TJ
J Dairy Sci; 2010 Feb; 93(2):743-52. PubMed ID: 20105546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Prediction accuracy for a simulated maternally affected trait of beef cattle using different genomic evaluation models.
Lourenco DA; Misztal I; Wang H; Aguilar I; Tsuruta S; Bertrand JK
J Anim Sci; 2013 Sep; 91(9):4090-8. PubMed ID: 23893997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Improving genetic evaluation of litter size and piglet mortality for both genotyped and nongenotyped individuals using a single-step method.
Guo X; Christensen OF; Ostersen T; Wang Y; Lund MS; Su G
J Anim Sci; 2015 Feb; 93(2):503-12. PubMed ID: 25549983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Genome-enabled methods for predicting litter size in pigs: a comparison.
Tusell L; Pérez-Rodríguez P; Forni S; Wu XL; Gianola D
Animal; 2013 Nov; 7(11):1739-49. PubMed ID: 23880322
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Accuracies of breeding values for dry matter intake using nongenotyped animals and predictor traits in different lactations.
Manzanilla-Pech CIV; Veerkamp RF; de Haas Y; Calus MPL; Ten Napel J
J Dairy Sci; 2017 Nov; 100(11):9103-9114. PubMed ID: 28865857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Methods for genomic evaluation of a relatively small genotyped dairy population and effect of genotyped cow information in multiparity analyses.
Lourenco DA; Misztal I; Tsuruta S; Aguilar I; Ezra E; Ron M; Shirak A; Weller JI
J Dairy Sci; 2014 Mar; 97(3):1742-52. PubMed ID: 24472123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Genomic prediction based on data from three layer lines: a comparison between linear methods.
Calus MP; Huang H; Vereijken A; Visscher J; Ten Napel J; Windig JJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Oct; 46(1):57. PubMed ID: 25927219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Sparse single-step method for genomic evaluation in pigs.
Ostersen T; Christensen OF; Madsen P; Henryon M
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Jun; 48(1):48. PubMed ID: 27357825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Methods to approximate reliabilities in single-step genomic evaluation.
Misztal I; Tsuruta S; Aguilar I; Legarra A; VanRaden PM; Lawlor TJ
J Dairy Sci; 2013 Jan; 96(1):647-54. PubMed ID: 23127903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Application of single step genomic BLUP under different uncertain paternity scenarios using simulated data.
Tonussi RL; Silva RMO; Magalhães AFB; Espigolan R; Peripolli E; Olivieri BF; Feitosa FLB; Lemos MVA; Berton MP; Chiaia HLJ; Pereira ASC; Lôbo RB; Bezerra LAF; Magnabosco CU; Lourenço DAL; Aguilar I; Baldi F
PLoS One; 2017; 12(9):e0181752. PubMed ID: 28957330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Experiences with a single-step genome evaluation.
Misztal I; Aggrey SE; Muir WM
Poult Sci; 2013 Sep; 92(9):2530-4. PubMed ID: 23960138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Correcting for base-population differences and unknown parent groups in single-step genomic predictions of Norwegian Red cattle.
Belay TK; Eikje LS; Gjuvsland AB; Nordbø Ø; Tribout T; Meuwissen T
J Anim Sci; 2022 Sep; 100(9):. PubMed ID: 35752161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Pedigree and genomic evaluation of pigs using a terminal-cross model.
Tusell L; Gilbert H; Riquet J; Mercat MJ; Legarra A; Larzul C
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Apr; 48():32. PubMed ID: 27056443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A recursive algorithm for decomposition and creation of the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix.
Faux P; Gengler N; Misztal I
J Dairy Sci; 2012 Oct; 95(10):6093-102. PubMed ID: 22884343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Genomic prediction in a nuclear population of layers using single-step models.
Yan Y; Wu G; Liu A; Sun C; Han W; Li G; Yang N
Poult Sci; 2018 Feb; 97(2):397-402. PubMed ID: 29140467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
