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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23365409)

  • 1. Bayesian parentage analysis with systematic accountability of genotyping error, missing data and false matching.
    Christie MR; Tennessen JA; Blouin MS
    Bioinformatics; 2013 Mar; 29(6):725-32. PubMed ID: 23365409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using genomic relationship likelihood for parentage assignment.
    Grashei KE; Ødegård J; Meuwissen THE
    Genet Sel Evol; 2018 May; 50(1):26. PubMed ID: 29776335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Bayesian parentage analysis reliably controls the number of false assignments in natural populations.
    Christie MR
    Mol Ecol; 2013 Dec; 22(23):5731-7. PubMed ID: 24102861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. How many markers are enough? Factors influencing parentage testing in different livestock populations.
    Strucken EM; Lee SH; Lee HK; Song KD; Gibson JP; Gondro C
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2016 Feb; 133(1):13-23. PubMed ID: 26234440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. APIS: An auto-adaptive parentage inference software that tolerates missing parents.
    Griot R; Allal F; Brard-Fudulea S; Morvezen R; Haffray P; Phocas F; Vandeputte M
    Mol Ecol Resour; 2020 Mar; 20(2):579-590. PubMed ID: 31609085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Exclusion and Genomic Relatedness Methods for Assignment of Parentage Using Genotyping-by-Sequencing Data.
    Dodds KG; McEwan JC; Brauning R; van Stijn TC; Rowe SJ; McEwan KM; Clarke SM
    G3 (Bethesda); 2019 Oct; 9(10):3239-3247. PubMed ID: 31383721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The power of single-nucleotide polymorphisms for large-scale parentage inference.
    Anderson EC; Garza JC
    Genetics; 2006 Apr; 172(4):2567-82. PubMed ID: 16387880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An empirical comparison of SNPs and microsatellites for parentage and kinship assignment in a wild sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) population.
    Hauser L; Baird M; Hilborn R; Seeb LW; Seeb JE
    Mol Ecol Resour; 2011 Mar; 11 Suppl 1():150-61. PubMed ID: 21429171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The aunt and uncle effect: an empirical evaluation of the confounding influence of full sibs of parents on pedigree reconstruction.
    Olsen JB; Busack C; Britt J; Bentzen P
    J Hered; 2001; 92(3):243-7. PubMed ID: 11447239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Estimation of genotyping error rate from repeat genotyping, unintentional recaptures and known parent-offspring comparisons in 16 microsatellite loci for brown rockfish (Sebastes auriculatus).
    Hess MA; Rhydderch JG; LeClair LL; Buckley RM; Kawase M; Hauser L
    Mol Ecol Resour; 2012 Nov; 12(6):1114-23. PubMed ID: 22958648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Large-scale parentage inference with SNPs: an efficient algorithm for statistical confidence of parent pair allocations.
    Anderson EC
    Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol; 2012 Nov; 11(5):. PubMed ID: 23152426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comment on 'Bayesian parentage analysis with systematic accountability of genotyping error, missing data and false matching'.
    Anderson EC; Ng TC
    Bioinformatics; 2014 Mar; 30(5):743-5. PubMed ID: 24130307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A bioinformatic pipeline for identifying informative SNP panels for parentage assignment from RADseq data.
    Andrews KR; Adams JR; Cassirer EF; Plowright RK; Gardner C; Dwire M; Hohenlohe PA; Waits LP
    Mol Ecol Resour; 2018 Nov; 18(6):1263-1281. PubMed ID: 29870119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effects of genotyping errors on parentage exclusion analysis.
    Wang J
    Mol Ecol; 2010 Nov; 19(22):5061-78. PubMed ID: 20964757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of genotyping error in model-free linkage analysis using microsatellite or single-nucleotide polymorphism marker maps.
    Thompson CL; Baechle D; Lu Q; Mathew G; Song Y; Iyengar SK; Gray-McGuire C; Goddard KA
    BMC Genet; 2005 Dec; 6 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S153. PubMed ID: 16451614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. On minimizing assignment errors and the trade-off between false positives and negatives in parentage analysis.
    Harrison HB; Saenz-Agudelo P; Planes S; Jones GP; Berumen ML
    Mol Ecol; 2013 Dec; 22(23):5738-42. PubMed ID: 24102837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Simple SNP-based minimal marker genotyping for Humulus lupulus L. identification and variety validation.
    Henning JA; Coggins J; Peterson M
    BMC Res Notes; 2015 Oct; 8():542. PubMed ID: 26438052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Relative accuracy of three common methods of parentage analysis in natural populations.
    Harrison HB; Saenz-Agudelo P; Planes S; Jones GP; Berumen ML
    Mol Ecol; 2013 Feb; 22(4):1158-70. PubMed ID: 23278953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Finding the right coverage: the impact of coverage and sequence quality on single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping error rates.
    Fountain ED; Pauli JN; Reid BN; Palsbøll PJ; Peery MZ
    Mol Ecol Resour; 2016 Jul; 16(4):966-78. PubMed ID: 26946083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Analytical and statistical consideration on the use of the ISAG-ICAR-SNP bovine panel for parentage control, using the Illumina BeadChip technology: example on the German Holstein population.
    Schütz E; Brenig B
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Feb; 47(1):3. PubMed ID: 25651826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.