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 *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24722227)

  • 1. Enhancing genome-enabled prediction by bagging genomic BLUP.
    Gianola D; Weigel KA; Krämer N; Stella A; Schön CC
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(4):e91693. PubMed ID: 24722227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Assessment of bagging GBLUP for whole-genome prediction of broiler chicken traits.
    Abdollahi-Arpanahi R; Morota G; Valente BD; Kranis A; Rosa GJ; Gianola D
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2015 Jun; 132(3):218-28. PubMed ID: 25727456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Multiple-Trait Bayesian Lasso for Genome-Enabled Analysis and Prediction of Complex Traits.
    Gianola D; Fernando RL
    Genetics; 2020 Feb; 214(2):305-331. PubMed ID: 31879318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Improving reliability of genomic predictions for Jersey sires using bootstrap aggregation sampling.
    Mikshowsky AA; Gianola D; Weigel KA
    J Dairy Sci; 2016 May; 99(5):3632-3645. PubMed ID: 26971146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Accounting for trait architecture in genomic predictions of US Holstein cattle using a weighted realized relationship matrix.
    Tiezzi F; Maltecca C
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Apr; 47(1):24. PubMed ID: 25886167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessing genomic prediction accuracy for Holstein sires using bootstrap aggregation sampling and leave-one-out cross validation.
    Mikshowsky AA; Gianola D; Weigel KA
    J Dairy Sci; 2017 Jan; 100(1):453-464. PubMed ID: 27889124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Novel Bayesian Networks for Genomic Prediction of Developmental Traits in Biomass Sorghum.
    Dos Santos JPR; Fernandes SB; McCoy S; Lozano R; Brown PJ; Leakey ADB; Buckler ES; Garcia AAF; Gore MA
    G3 (Bethesda); 2020 Feb; 10(2):769-781. PubMed ID: 31852730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Best linear unbiased prediction of genomic breeding values using a trait-specific marker-derived relationship matrix.
    Zhang Z; Liu J; Ding X; Bijma P; de Koning DJ; Zhang Q
    PLoS One; 2010 Sep; 5(9):. PubMed ID: 20844593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Multi-Trait Genomic Prediction of Yield-Related Traits in US Soft Wheat under Variable Water Regimes.
    Guo J; Khan J; Pradhan S; Shahi D; Khan N; Avci M; Mcbreen J; Harrison S; Brown-Guedira G; Murphy JP; Johnson J; Mergoum M; Esten Mason R; Ibrahim AMH; Sutton R; Griffey C; Babar MA
    Genes (Basel); 2020 Oct; 11(11):. PubMed ID: 33126620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Genomic prediction using imputed whole-genome sequence data in Holstein Friesian cattle.
    van Binsbergen R; Calus MP; Bink MC; van Eeuwijk FA; Schrooten C; Veerkamp RF
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Sep; 47(1):71. PubMed ID: 26381777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Alternative SNP weighting for single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor evaluation of stature in US Holsteins in the presence of selected sequence variants.
    Fragomeni BO; Lourenco DAL; Legarra A; VanRaden PM; Misztal I
    J Dairy Sci; 2019 Nov; 102(11):10012-10019. PubMed ID: 31495612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparison of conventional BLUP and single-step genomic BLUP evaluations for yearling weight and carcass traits in Hanwoo beef cattle using single trait and multi-trait models.
    Mehrban H; Lee DH; Naserkheil M; Moradi MH; Ibáñez-Escriche N
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(10):e0223352. PubMed ID: 31609979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of genomic predictions using genomic relationship matrices built with different weighting factors to account for locus-specific variances.
    Su G; Christensen OF; Janss L; Lund MS
    J Dairy Sci; 2014 Oct; 97(10):6547-59. PubMed ID: 25129495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Genomic Selection in Winter Wheat Breeding Using a Recommender Approach.
    Lozada DN; Carter AH
    Genes (Basel); 2020 Jul; 11(7):. PubMed ID: 32664601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Opportunities for genomic selection in American mink: A simulation study.
    Karimi K; Sargolzaei M; Plastow GS; Wang Z; Miar Y
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(3):e0213873. PubMed ID: 30870528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.