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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24506177)

  • 21. Comparison of index selection and best linear unbiased prediction for simulated layer poultry data.
    Jeyaruban MG; Gibson JP; Gowe RS
    Poult Sci; 1995 Oct; 74(10):1566-76. PubMed ID: 8559719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Optimal strategies for the use of genomic selection in dairy cattle breeding programs.
    Wensch-Dorendorf M; Yin T; Swalve HH; König S
    J Dairy Sci; 2011 Aug; 94(8):4140-51. PubMed ID: 21787949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Application of selection index calculations to determine selection strategies in genomic breeding programs.
    König S; Swalve HH
    J Dairy Sci; 2009 Oct; 92(10):5292-303. PubMed ID: 19762847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effects of genomic selection on genetic improvement, inbreeding, and merit of young versus proven bulls.
    de Roos AP; Schrooten C; Veerkamp RF; van Arendonk JA
    J Dairy Sci; 2011 Mar; 94(3):1559-67. PubMed ID: 21338821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Investigating the impact of preselection on subsequent single-step genomic BLUP evaluation of preselected animals.
    Jibrila I; Ten Napel J; Vandenplas J; Veerkamp RF; Calus MPL
    Genet Sel Evol; 2020 Jul; 52(1):42. PubMed ID: 32727349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Indirect genetic effects and inbreeding: consequences of BLUP selection for socially affected traits on rate of inbreeding.
    Khaw HL; Ponzoni RW; Bijma P
    Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Jun; 46(1):39. PubMed ID: 24961990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Potential benefits of genomic selection on genetic gain of small ruminant breeding programs.
    Shumbusho F; Raoul J; Astruc JM; Palhiere I; Elsen JM
    J Anim Sci; 2013 Aug; 91(8):3644-57. PubMed ID: 23736059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. New cycle, same old mistakes? Overlapping vs. discrete generations in long-term recurrent selection.
    Labroo MR; Rutkoski JE
    BMC Genomics; 2022 Oct; 23(1):736. PubMed ID: 36316650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Most of the benefits from genomic selection can be realized by genotyping a small proportion of available selection candidates.
    Henryon M; Berg P; Ostersen T; Nielsen B; Sørensen AC
    J Anim Sci; 2012 Dec; 90(13):4681-9. PubMed ID: 23087087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Optimizing selection on multiple identified quantitative trait loci in population with overlapping generations.
    Tang GQ; Li XW
    Yi Chuan Xue Bao; 2006 May; 33(5):429-40. PubMed ID: 16722338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Bias in heritability estimates from genomic restricted maximum likelihood methods under different genotyping strategies.
    Cesarani A; Pocrnic I; Macciotta NPP; Fragomeni BO; Misztal I; Lourenco DAL
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2019 Jan; 136(1):40-50. PubMed ID: 30426582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Benefits of cooperation between breeding programs in the presence of genotype by environment interaction.
    Mulder HA; Bijma P
    J Dairy Sci; 2006 May; 89(5):1727-39. PubMed ID: 16606744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Persistency of accuracy of genomic breeding values for different simulated pig breeding programs in developing countries.
    Akanno EC; Schenkel FS; Sargolzaei M; Friendship RM; Robinson JA
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2014 Oct; 131(5):367-78. PubMed ID: 24628765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The value of cows in reference populations for genomic selection of new functional traits.
    Buch LH; Kargo M; Berg P; Lassen J; Sørensen AC
    Animal; 2012 Jun; 6(6):880-6. PubMed ID: 22558957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Across-family marker-assisted selection using selective genotyping strategies in dairy cattle breeding schemes.
    Ansari-Mahyari S; Sørensen AC; Lund MS; Thomsen H; Berg P
    J Dairy Sci; 2008 Apr; 91(4):1628-39. PubMed ID: 18349255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of restricted maximum likelihood and method R for estimating heritability and predicting breeding value under selection.
    Cantet RJ; Birchmeier AN; Santos-Cristal MG; de Avila VS
    J Anim Sci; 2000 Oct; 78(10):2554-60. PubMed ID: 11048920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Genomic selection for maternal traits in pigs.
    Lillehammer M; Meuwissen TH; Sonesson AK
    J Anim Sci; 2011 Dec; 89(12):3908-16. PubMed ID: 21841086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. [Effect of population size of performance test on short-term selection result of sire line].
    Zhang H; Li JQ; Wang C; Liu XH; Chen YS
    Yi Chuan Xue Bao; 2005 Jul; 32(7):696-703. PubMed ID: 16078737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.