161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23134637)
1. A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population.
Neves HH; Carvalheiro R; Queiroz SA
BMC Genet; 2012 Nov; 13():100. PubMed ID: 23134637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Genome-wide prediction using Bayesian additive regression trees.
Waldmann P
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Jun; 48(1):42. PubMed ID: 27286957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Comparison of parametric, semiparametric and nonparametric methods in genomic evaluation.
Sahebalam H; Gholizadeh M; Hafezian H; Farhadi A
J Genet; 2019 Nov; 98():. PubMed ID: 31767821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Accounting for trait architecture in genomic predictions of US Holstein cattle using a weighted realized relationship matrix.
Tiezzi F; Maltecca C
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Apr; 47(1):24. PubMed ID: 25886167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. A Unified and Comprehensible View of Parametric and Kernel Methods for Genomic Prediction with Application to Rice.
Jacquin L; Cao TV; Ahmadi N
Front Genet; 2016; 7():145. PubMed ID: 27555865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Multiple-trait analyses improved the accuracy of genomic prediction and the power of genome-wide association of productivity and climate change-adaptive traits in lodgepole pine.
Cappa EP; Chen C; Klutsch JG; Sebastian-Azcona J; Ratcliffe B; Wei X; Da Ros L; Ullah A; Liu Y; Benowicz A; Sadoway S; Mansfield SD; Erbilgin N; Thomas BR; El-Kassaby YA
BMC Genomics; 2022 Jul; 23(1):536. PubMed ID: 35870886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Genomic predictions can accelerate selection for resistance against Piscirickettsia salmonis in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).
Bangera R; Correa K; Lhorente JP; Figueroa R; Yáñez JM
BMC Genomics; 2017 Jan; 18(1):121. PubMed ID: 28143402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Genomic Prediction of Additive and Non-additive Effects Using Genetic Markers and Pedigrees.
de Almeida Filho JE; Guimarães JFR; Fonsceca E Silva F; Vilela de Resende MD; Muñoz P; Kirst M; de Resende Júnior MFR
G3 (Bethesda); 2019 Aug; 9(8):2739-2748. PubMed ID: 31263059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Improving accuracy of genomic predictions within and between dairy cattle breeds with imputed high-density single nucleotide polymorphism panels.
Erbe M; Hayes BJ; Matukumalli LK; Goswami S; Bowman PJ; Reich CM; Mason BA; Goddard ME
J Dairy Sci; 2012 Jul; 95(7):4114-29. PubMed ID: 22720968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Genomic-enabled prediction with classification algorithms.
Ornella L; Pérez P; Tapia E; González-Camacho JM; Burgueño J; Zhang X; Singh S; Vicente FS; Bonnett D; Dreisigacker S; Singh R; Long N; Crossa J
Heredity (Edinb); 2014 Jun; 112(6):616-26. PubMed ID: 24424163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Within- and across-breed genomic prediction using whole-genome sequence and single nucleotide polymorphism panels.
Iheshiulor OO; Woolliams JA; Yu X; Wellmann R; Meuwissen TH
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Feb; 48():15. PubMed ID: 26895843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Predictive performance of genomic selection methods for carcass traits in Hanwoo beef cattle: impacts of the genetic architecture.
Mehrban H; Lee DH; Moradi MH; IlCho C; Naserkheil M; Ibáñez-Escriche N
Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Jan; 49(1):1. PubMed ID: 28093066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. On the use of whole-genome sequence data for across-breed genomic prediction and fine-scale mapping of QTL.
Meuwissen T; van den Berg I; Goddard M
Genet Sel Evol; 2021 Feb; 53(1):19. PubMed ID: 33637049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluation of genomic selection methods for predicting fiber quality traits in Upland cotton.
Islam MS; Fang DD; Jenkins JN; Guo J; McCarty JC; Jones DC
Mol Genet Genomics; 2020 Jan; 295(1):67-79. PubMed ID: 31473809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparative analysis of the GBLUP, emBayesB, and GWAS algorithms to predict genetic values in large yellow croaker (Larimichthys crocea).
Dong L; Xiao S; Wang Q; Wang Z
BMC Genomics; 2016 Jun; 17():460. PubMed ID: 27301965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
