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.
30. Graph-based data selection for the construction of genomic prediction models. Maenhout S; De Baets B; Haesaert G Genetics; 2010 Aug; 185(4):1463-75. PubMed ID: 20479144 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Comparison of selective genotyping strategies for prediction of breeding values in a population undergoing selection. Boligon AA; Long N; Albuquerque LG; Weigel KA; Gianola D; Rosa GJ J Anim Sci; 2012 Dec; 90(13):4716-22. PubMed ID: 23372045 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Phenotypic Data from Inbred Parents Can Improve Genomic Prediction in Pearl Millet Hybrids. Liang Z; Gupta SK; Yeh CT; Zhang Y; Ngu DW; Kumar R; Patil HT; Mungra KD; Yadav DV; Rathore A; Srivastava RK; Gupta R; Yang J; Varshney RK; Schnable PS; Schnable JC G3 (Bethesda); 2018 Jul; 8(7):2513-2522. PubMed ID: 29794163 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Genomic evaluation using SNP- and haplotype-based genomic relationship matrices in a closed line of Duroc pigs. Uemoto Y; Sato S; Kikuchi T; Egawa S; Kohira K; Sakuma H; Miyashita S; Arata S; Kojima T; Suzuki K Anim Sci J; 2017 Oct; 88(10):1465-1474. PubMed ID: 28557153 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Genomic prediction of growth in pigs based on a model including additive and dominance effects. Lopes MS; Bastiaansen JW; Janss L; Knol EF; Bovenhuis H J Anim Breed Genet; 2016 Jun; 133(3):180-6. PubMed ID: 26676611 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A comparison of identity-by-descent and identity-by-state matrices that are used for genetic evaluation and estimation of variance components. Fernando RL; Cheng H; Sun X; Garrick DJ J Anim Breed Genet; 2017 Jun; 134(3):213-223. PubMed ID: 28508481 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. Pooled genotyping strategies for the rapid construction of genomic reference populations1. Alexandre PA; Porto-Neto LR; Karaman E; Lehnert SA; Reverter A J Anim Sci; 2019 Dec; 97(12):4761-4769. PubMed ID: 31710679 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]