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 *

402 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23640517)

  • 1. Genomic BLUP decoded: a look into the black box of genomic prediction.
    Habier D; Fernando RL; Garrick DJ
    Genetics; 2013 Jul; 194(3):597-607. PubMed ID: 23640517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle.
    Habier D; Tetens J; Seefried FR; Lichtner P; Thaller G
    Genet Sel Evol; 2010 Feb; 42(1):5. PubMed ID: 20170500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Accuracy of Genomic Prediction in Synthetic Populations Depending on the Number of Parents, Relatedness, and Ancestral Linkage Disequilibrium.
    Schopp P; Müller D; Technow F; Melchinger AE
    Genetics; 2017 Jan; 205(1):441-454. PubMed ID: 28049710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values.
    Habier D; Fernando RL; Dekkers JC
    Genetics; 2007 Dec; 177(4):2389-97. PubMed ID: 18073436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Contributions of linkage disequilibrium and co-segregation information to the accuracy of genomic prediction.
    Sun X; Fernando R; Dekkers J
    Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Oct; 48(1):77. PubMed ID: 27729012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Factors affecting accuracy from genomic selection in populations derived from multiple inbred lines: a Barley case study.
    Zhong S; Dekkers JC; Fernando RL; Jannink JL
    Genetics; 2009 May; 182(1):355-64. PubMed ID: 19299342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Resource allocation for maximizing prediction accuracy and genetic gain of genomic selection in plant breeding: a simulation experiment.
    Lorenz AJ
    G3 (Bethesda); 2013 Mar; 3(3):481-91. PubMed ID: 23450123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Modeling Epistasis in Genomic Selection.
    Jiang Y; Reif JC
    Genetics; 2015 Oct; 201(2):759-68. PubMed ID: 26219298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Prediction of complex human traits using the genomic best linear unbiased predictor.
    de Los Campos G; Vazquez AI; Fernando R; Klimentidis YC; Sorensen D
    PLoS Genet; 2013; 9(7):e1003608. PubMed ID: 23874214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Persistency of Prediction Accuracy and Genetic Gain in Synthetic Populations Under Recurrent Genomic Selection.
    Müller D; Schopp P; Melchinger AE
    G3 (Bethesda); 2017 Mar; 7(3):801-811. PubMed ID: 28064189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Genomic Studies Reveal Substantial Dominant Effects and Improved Genomic Predictions in an Open-Pollinated Breeding Population of
    Thavamanikumar S; Arnold RJ; Luo J; Thumma BR
    G3 (Bethesda); 2020 Oct; 10(10):3751-3763. PubMed ID: 32788286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Genomic prediction models for traits differing in heritability for soybean, rice, and maize.
    Kaler AS; Purcell LC; Beissinger T; Gillman JD
    BMC Plant Biol; 2022 Feb; 22(1):87. PubMed ID: 35219296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Genomic selection models double the accuracy of predicted breeding values for bacterial cold water disease resistance compared to a traditional pedigree-based model in rainbow trout aquaculture.
    Vallejo RL; Leeds TD; Gao G; Parsons JE; Martin KE; Evenhuis JP; Fragomeni BO; Wiens GD; Palti Y
    Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Feb; 49(1):17. PubMed ID: 28148220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Genomic prediction of breeding values using previously estimated SNP variances.
    Calus MP; Schrooten C; Veerkamp RF
    Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Sep; 46(1):52. PubMed ID: 25928875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Genomic prediction ability for beef fatty acid profile in Nelore cattle using different pseudo-phenotypes.
    Chiaia HLJ; Peripolli E; de Oliveira Silva RM; Feitosa FLB; de Lemos MVA; Berton MP; Olivieri BF; Espigolan R; Tonussi RL; Gordo DGM; de Albuquerque LG; de Oliveira HN; Ferrinho AM; Mueller LF; Kluska S; Tonhati H; Pereira ASC; Aguilar I; Baldi F
    J Appl Genet; 2018 Nov; 59(4):493-501. PubMed ID: 30251238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.