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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24885089)

  • 1. Total cost estimation for implementing genome-enabled selection in a multi-level swine production system.
    Abell CE; Dekkers JC; Rothschild MF; Mabry JW; Stalder KJ
    Genet Sel Evol; 2014 May; 46(1):32. PubMed ID: 24885089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Practical implementation of cost-effective genomic selection in commercial pig breeding using imputation.
    Cleveland MA; Hickey JM
    J Anim Sci; 2013 Aug; 91(8):3583-92. PubMed ID: 23736050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Genomic selection using low density marker panels with application to a sire line in pigs.
    Wellmann R; Preuß S; Tholen E; Heinkel J; Wimmers K; Bennewitz J
    Genet Sel Evol; 2013 Jul; 45(1):28. PubMed ID: 23895218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Economic evaluation of genomic selection in small ruminants: a sheep meat breeding program.
    Shumbusho F; Raoul J; Astruc JM; Palhiere I; Lemarié S; Fugeray-Scarbel A; Elsen JM
    Animal; 2016 Jun; 10(6):1033-41. PubMed ID: 26446712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The impact of selective genotyping on the response to selection using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction.
    Howard JT; Rathje TA; Bruns CE; Wilson-Wells DF; Kachman SD; Spangler ML
    J Anim Sci; 2018 Nov; 96(11):4532-4542. PubMed ID: 30107560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Accuracy of estimation of genomic breeding values in pigs using low-density genotypes and imputation.
    Badke YM; Bates RO; Ernst CW; Fix J; Steibel JP
    G3 (Bethesda); 2014 Apr; 4(4):623-31. PubMed ID: 24531728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Use of field data in pig genomic selection schemes: a simulation study.
    Lillehammer M; Sonesson AK; Meuwissen TH
    Animal; 2016 Jun; 10(6):1025-32. PubMed ID: 26627382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Accuracy of genome-enabled prediction exploring purebred and crossbred pig populations.
    Veroneze R; Lopes MS; Hidalgo AM; Guimarães SE; Silva FF; Harlizius B; Lopes PS; Knol EF; M van Arendonk JA; Bastiaansen JW
    J Anim Sci; 2015 Oct; 93(10):4684-91. PubMed ID: 26523561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Genetic and economic benefits of selection based on performance recording and genotyping in lower tiers of multi-tiered sheep breeding schemes.
    Santos BF; van der Werf JH; Gibson JP; Byrne TJ; Amer PR
    Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Jan; 49(1):10. PubMed ID: 28095776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Response to a selection index including environmental costs and risk preferences of producers.
    Ali BM; Bastiaansen JWM; de Mey Y; Oude Lansink AGJM
    J Anim Sci; 2019 Jan; 97(1):156-171. PubMed ID: 30321346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Efficiency of genomic selection in an established commercial layer breeding program.
    Sitzenstock F; Ytournel F; Sharifi AR; Cavero D; Täubert H; Preisinger R; Simianer H
    Genet Sel Evol; 2013 Jul; 45(1):29. PubMed ID: 23902427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Genetic change results from selection on an economic breeding objective in beef cattle.
    Enns RM; Nicoll GB
    J Anim Sci; 2008 Dec; 86(12):3348-57. PubMed ID: 18469047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessment of alternative genotyping strategies to maximize imputation accuracy at minimal cost.
    Huang Y; Hickey JM; Cleveland MA; Maltecca C
    Genet Sel Evol; 2012 Jul; 44(1):25. PubMed ID: 22849718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Purebred-crossbred genetic parameters for reproductive traits in swine.
    Kramer LM; Wolc A; Esfandyari H; Thekkoot DM; Zhang C; Kemp RA; Plastow G; Dekkers JCM
    J Anim Sci; 2021 Oct; 99(10):. PubMed ID: 34558614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Genomic selection for two traits in a maternal pig breeding scheme.
    Lillehammer M; Meuwissen TH; Sonesson AK
    J Anim Sci; 2013 Jul; 91(7):3079-87. PubMed ID: 23658351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Genomic selection in a pig population including information from slaughtered full sibs of boars within a sib-testing program.
    Samorè AB; Buttazzoni L; Gallo M; Russo V; Fontanesi L
    Animal; 2015 May; 9(5):750-9. PubMed ID: 25510405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Sire evaluation for total number born in pigs using a genomic reaction norms approach.
    Silva FF; Mulder HA; Knol EF; Lopes MS; Guimarães SE; Lopes PS; Mathur PK; Viana JM; Bastiaansen JW
    J Anim Sci; 2014 Sep; 92(9):3825-34. PubMed ID: 24492557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Genotype imputation from various low-density SNP panels and its impact on accuracy of genomic breeding values in pigs.
    Grossi DA; Brito LF; Jafarikia M; Schenkel FS; Feng Z
    Animal; 2018 Nov; 12(11):2235-2245. PubMed ID: 29706144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A bioeconomic simulation model for a hierarchical swine breeding structure.
    Faust MA; Tess MW; Robison OW
    J Anim Sci; 1992 Jun; 70(6):1760-74. PubMed ID: 1634400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.