171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24416447)
1. Including dominance effects in the genomic BLUP method for genomic evaluation.
Nishio M; Satoh M
PLoS One; 2014; 9(1):e85792. PubMed ID: 24416447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Genomic evaluation by including dominance effects and inbreeding depression for purebred and crossbred performance with an application in pigs.
Xiang T; Christensen OF; Vitezica ZG; Legarra A
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Nov; 48(1):92. PubMed ID: 27887565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Genome-wide prediction for complex traits under the presence of dominance effects in simulated populations using GBLUP and machine learning methods.
Alves AAC; da Costa RM; Bresolin T; Fernandes Júnior GA; Espigolan R; Ribeiro AMF; Carvalheiro R; de Albuquerque LG
J Anim Sci; 2020 Jun; 98(6):. PubMed ID: 32474602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Genomic best linear unbiased prediction method including imprinting effects for genomic evaluation.
Nishio M; Satoh M
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Apr; 47(1):32. PubMed ID: 25928098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mixed model methods for genomic prediction and variance component estimation of additive and dominance effects using SNP markers.
Da Y; Wang C; Wang S; Hu G
PLoS One; 2014; 9(1):e87666. PubMed ID: 24498162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Genomic studies with preselected markers reveal dominance effects influencing growth traits in Eucalyptus nitens.
Thumma BR; Joyce KR; Jacobs A
G3 (Bethesda); 2022 Jan; 12(1):. PubMed ID: 34791210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Estimating additive and non-additive genetic variances and predicting genetic merits using genome-wide dense single nucleotide polymorphism markers.
Su G; Christensen OF; Ostersen T; Henryon M; Lund MS
PLoS One; 2012; 7(9):e45293. PubMed ID: 23028912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Single-step genomic evaluation for growth traits in a Mexican Braunvieh cattle population.
Valerio-Hernández JE; Ruíz-Flores A; Nilforooshan MA; Pérez-Rodríguez P
Anim Biosci; 2023 Jul; 36(7):1003-1009. PubMed ID: 36915917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Genomic BLUP including additive and dominant variation in purebreds and F1 crossbreds, with an application in pigs.
Vitezica ZG; Varona L; Elsen JM; Misztal I; Herring W; Legarra A
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Jan; 48():6. PubMed ID: 26825279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Genomic prediction of crossbred performance based on purebred Landrace and Yorkshire data using a dominance model.
Esfandyari H; Bijma P; Henryon M; Christensen OF; Sørensen AC
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Jun; 48(1):40. PubMed ID: 27276993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Dominance and epistatic genetic variances for litter size in pigs using genomic models.
Vitezica ZG; Reverter A; Herring W; Legarra A
Genet Sel Evol; 2018 Dec; 50(1):71. PubMed ID: 30577727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Increasing genomic prediction accuracy for unphenotyped full-sib families by modeling additive and dominance effects with large datasets in white spruce.
Nadeau S; Beaulieu J; Gezan SA; Perron M; Bousquet J; Lenz PRN
Front Plant Sci; 2023; 14():1137834. PubMed ID: 37035077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Genomic Model with Correlation Between Additive and Dominance Effects.
Xiang T; Christensen OF; Vitezica ZG; Legarra A
Genetics; 2018 Jul; 209(3):711-723. PubMed ID: 29743175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Dissecting total genetic variance into additive and dominance components of purebred and crossbred pig traits.
Tusell L; Gilbert H; Vitezica ZG; Mercat MJ; Legarra A; Larzul C
Animal; 2019 Nov; 13(11):2429-2439. PubMed ID: 31120005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Impact of fitting dominance and additive effects on accuracy of genomic prediction of breeding values in layers.
Heidaritabar M; Wolc A; Arango J; Zeng J; Settar P; Fulton JE; O'Sullivan NP; Bastiaansen JW; Fernando RL; Garrick DJ; Dekkers JC
J Anim Breed Genet; 2016 Oct; 133(5):334-46. PubMed ID: 27357473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Experiences with a single-step genome evaluation.
Misztal I; Aggrey SE; Muir WM
Poult Sci; 2013 Sep; 92(9):2530-4. PubMed ID: 23960138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A new genomic prediction method with additive-dominance effects in the least-squares framework.
Liu H; Chen GB
Heredity (Edinb); 2018 Aug; 121(2):196-204. PubMed ID: 29925888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Genome-Enabled Estimates of Additive and Nonadditive Genetic Variances and Prediction of Apple Phenotypes Across Environments.
Kumar S; Molloy C; Muñoz P; Daetwyler H; Chagné D; Volz R
G3 (Bethesda); 2015 Oct; 5(12):2711-8. PubMed ID: 26497141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Performances of Adaptive MultiBLUP, Bayesian regressions, and weighted-GBLUP approaches for genomic predictions in Belgian Blue beef cattle.
Gualdrón Duarte JL; Gori AS; Hubin X; Lourenco D; Charlier C; Misztal I; Druet T
BMC Genomics; 2020 Aug; 21(1):545. PubMed ID: 32762654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
