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 *

96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24102861)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Estimation of migration rates from marker-based parentage analysis.
    Wang J
    Mol Ecol; 2014 Jul; 23(13):3191-213. PubMed ID: 24863365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Parentage in natural populations: novel methods to detect parent-offspring pairs in large data sets.
    Christie MR
    Mol Ecol Resour; 2010 Jan; 10(1):115-28. PubMed ID: 21564996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Parentage and relatedness in captive and natural populations of the Roseate Spoonbill (Aves: Ciconiiformes) based on microsatellite data.
    Miño CI; Sawyer GM; Benjamin RC; Del Lama SN
    J Exp Zool A Ecol Genet Physiol; 2009 Jul; 311(6):453-64. PubMed ID: 19424995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Comparing parentage inference software: reanalysis of a red deer pedigree.
    Walling CA; Pemberton JM; Hadfield JD; Kruuk LE
    Mol Ecol; 2010 May; 19(9):1914-28. PubMed ID: 20345675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Unbiased estimation of relative reproductive success of different groups: evaluation and correction of bias caused by parentage assignment errors.
    Araki H; Blouin MS
    Mol Ecol; 2005 Nov; 14(13):4097-109. PubMed ID: 16262861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Relationship type affects the reliability of dispersal distance estimated using pedigree inferences in partially sampled populations: A case study involving invasive American mink in Scotland.
    Melero Y; Oliver MK; Lambin X
    Mol Ecol; 2017 Aug; 26(15):4059-4071. PubMed ID: 28437587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Towards unbiased parentage assignment: combining genetic, behavioural and spatial data in a Bayesian framework.
    Hadfield JD; Richardson DS; Burke T
    Mol Ecol; 2006 Oct; 15(12):3715-30. PubMed ID: 17032269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The potential costs of accounting for genotypic errors in molecular parentage analyses.
    Morrissey MB; Wilson AJ
    Mol Ecol; 2005 Nov; 14(13):4111-21. PubMed ID: 16262862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Do marker-based paternity assignments favour heterozygous and unrelated males?
    Wang J
    Mol Ecol; 2010 May; 19(9):1898-913. PubMed ID: 20345688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. An empirical verification of population assignment methods by marking and parentage data: hatchery and wild steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Forks Creek, Washington, USA.
    Hauser L; Seamons TR; Dauer M; Naish KA; Quinn TP
    Mol Ecol; 2006 Oct; 15(11):3157-73. PubMed ID: 16968262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.