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 *

175 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24495634)

  • 1. Allele frequency changes due to hitch-hiking in genomic selection programs.
    Liu H; Sørensen AC; Meuwissen TH; Berg P
    Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Feb; 46(1):8. PubMed ID: 24495634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Marker-assisted selection can reduce true as well as pedigree-estimated inbreeding.
    Pedersen LD; Sørensen AC; Berg P
    J Dairy Sci; 2009 May; 92(5):2214-23. PubMed ID: 19389980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Inbreeding and runs of homozygosity before and after genomic selection in North American Holstein cattle.
    Forutan M; Ansari Mahyari S; Baes C; Melzer N; Schenkel FS; Sargolzaei M
    BMC Genomics; 2018 Jan; 19(1):98. PubMed ID: 29374456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Marker-assisted selection reduces expected inbreeding but can result in large effects of hitchhiking.
    Pedersen LD; Sørensen AC; Berg P
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2010 Jun; 127(3):189-98. PubMed ID: 20536636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Pedigree relationships to control inbreeding in optimum-contribution selection realise more genetic gain than genomic relationships.
    Henryon M; Liu H; Berg P; Su G; Nielsen HM; Gebregiwergis GT; Sørensen AC
    Genet Sel Evol; 2019 Jul; 51(1):39. PubMed ID: 31286868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Long-term response to genomic selection: effects of estimation method and reference population structure for different genetic architectures.
    Bastiaansen JW; Coster A; Calus MP; van Arendonk JA; Bovenhuis H
    Genet Sel Evol; 2012 Jan; 44(1):3. PubMed ID: 22273519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Reliability of pedigree-based and genomic evaluations in selected populations.
    Gorjanc G; Bijma P; Hickey JM
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Aug; 47(1):65. PubMed ID: 26271246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Genomic selection requires genomic control of inbreeding.
    Sonesson AK; Woolliams JA; Meuwissen TH
    Genet Sel Evol; 2012 Aug; 44(1):27. PubMed ID: 22898324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Trends in genome-wide and region-specific genetic diversity in the Dutch-Flemish Holstein-Friesian breeding program from 1986 to 2015.
    Doekes HP; Veerkamp RF; Bijma P; Hiemstra SJ; Windig JJ
    Genet Sel Evol; 2018 Apr; 50(1):15. PubMed ID: 29642838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Economic aspects of implementing genomic evaluations in a pig sire line breeding scheme.
    Tribout T; Larzul C; Phocas F
    Genet Sel Evol; 2013 Oct; 45(1):40. PubMed ID: 24127883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Upweighting rare favourable alleles increases long-term genetic gain in genomic selection programs.
    Liu H; Meuwissen TH; Sørensen AC; Berg P
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Mar; 47(1):19. PubMed ID: 25886296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Optimum contribution selection using traditional best linear unbiased prediction and genomic breeding values in aquaculture breeding schemes.
    Nielsen HM; Sonesson AK; Meuwissen TH
    J Anim Sci; 2011 Mar; 89(3):630-8. PubMed ID: 21036937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Impact and utility of shallow pedigree using single-step genomic BLUP for prediction of unbiased genomic breeding values.
    Gowane GR; Alex R; Mukherjee A; Vohra V
    Trop Anim Health Prod; 2022 Oct; 54(6):339. PubMed ID: 36210357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Systematic differences in the response of genetic variation to pedigree and genome-based selection methods.
    Heidaritabar M; Vereijken A; Muir WM; Meuwissen T; Cheng H; Megens HJ; Groenen MA; Bastiaansen JW
    Heredity (Edinb); 2014 Dec; 113(6):503-13. PubMed ID: 25074573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mating structures for genomic selection breeding programs in aquaculture.
    Sonesson AK; Ødegård J
    Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Jun; 48(1):46. PubMed ID: 27342705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Genomic selection in dairy cattle simulated populations.
    Seno LO; Guidolin DGF; Aspilcueta-Borquis RR; Nascimento GBD; Silva TBRD; Oliveira HN; Munari DP
    J Dairy Res; 2018 May; 85(2):125-132. PubMed ID: 29785919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Potential of gene drives with genome editing to increase genetic gain in livestock breeding programs.
    Gonen S; Jenko J; Gorjanc G; Mileham AJ; Whitelaw CB; Hickey JM
    Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Jan; 49(1):3. PubMed ID: 28093068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Marker assisted selection for the improvement of two antagonistic traits under mixed inheritance.
    Verrier E
    Genet Sel Evol; 2001; 33(1):17-38. PubMed ID: 11268312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.