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 *

223 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25158793)

  • 1. On the distance of genetic relationships and the accuracy of genomic prediction in pig breeding.
    Meuwissen TH; Odegard J; Andersen-Ranberg I; Grindflek E
    Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Aug; 46(1):49. PubMed ID: 25158793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Weighting genomic and genealogical information for genetic parameter estimation and breeding value prediction in tropical beef cattle.
    Raidan FSS; Porto-Neto LR; Li Y; Lehnert SA; Reverter A
    J Anim Sci; 2018 Mar; 96(2):612-617. PubMed ID: 29385460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Genomic evaluation using SNP- and haplotype-based genomic relationship matrices in a closed line of Duroc pigs.
    Uemoto Y; Sato S; Kikuchi T; Egawa S; Kohira K; Sakuma H; Miyashita S; Arata S; Kojima T; Suzuki K
    Anim Sci J; 2017 Oct; 88(10):1465-1474. PubMed ID: 28557153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Genomic prediction based on runs of homozygosity.
    Luan T; Yu X; Dolezal M; Bagnato A; Meuwissen TH
    Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Oct; 46(1):64. PubMed ID: 25284459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Accuracy of prediction of simulated polygenic phenotypes and their underlying quantitative trait loci genotypes using real or imputed whole-genome markers in cattle.
    Hassani S; Saatchi M; Fernando RL; Garrick DJ
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Dec; 47():99. PubMed ID: 26698091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of number of training generations on genomic prediction for various traits in a layer chicken population.
    Weng Z; Wolc A; Shen X; Fernando RL; Dekkers JC; Arango J; Settar P; Fulton JE; O'Sullivan NP; Garrick DJ
    Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Mar; 48():22. PubMed ID: 26992471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The importance of identity-by-state information for the accuracy of genomic selection.
    Luan T; Woolliams JA; Odegård J; Dolezal M; Roman-Ponce SI; Bagnato A; Meuwissen TH
    Genet Sel Evol; 2012 Aug; 44(1):28. PubMed ID: 22937985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Estimates of missing heritability for complex traits in Brown Swiss cattle.
    Román-Ponce SI; Samoré AB; Dolezal MA; Bagnato A; Meuwissen TH
    Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Jun; 46(1):36. PubMed ID: 24898214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Using selection index theory to estimate consistency of multi-locus linkage disequilibrium across populations.
    Wientjes YC; Veerkamp RF; Calus MP
    BMC Genet; 2015 Jul; 16():87. PubMed ID: 26187501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Crossbreed evaluations in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor using adjusted realized relationship matrices.
    Lourenco DA; Tsuruta S; Fragomeni BO; Chen CY; Herring WO; Misztal I
    J Anim Sci; 2016 Mar; 94(3):909-19. PubMed ID: 27065253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Genomic predictions in purebreds with a multibreed genomic relationship matrix1.
    Steyn Y; Lourenco DAL; Misztal I
    J Anim Sci; 2019 Nov; 97(11):4418-4427. PubMed ID: 31539424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Genomic breeding value estimation using genetic markers, inferred ancestral haplotypes, and the genomic relationship matrix.
    de Roos AP; Schrooten C; Druet T
    J Dairy Sci; 2011 Sep; 94(9):4708-14. PubMed ID: 21854945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Accuracy of Predicted Genomic Breeding Values in Purebred and Crossbred Pigs.
    Hidalgo AM; Bastiaansen JW; Lopes MS; Harlizius B; Groenen MA; de Koning DJ
    G3 (Bethesda); 2015 May; 5(8):1575-83. PubMed ID: 26019187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Alternative haplotype construction methods for genomic evaluation.
    Jónás D; Ducrocq V; Fouilloux MN; Croiseau P
    J Dairy Sci; 2016 Jun; 99(6):4537-4546. PubMed ID: 26995132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Including crossbred pigs in the genomic relationship matrix through utilization of both linkage disequilibrium and linkage analysis.
    Iversen MW; Nordbø Ø; Gjerlaug-Enger E; Grindflek E; Lopes MS; Meuwissen THE
    J Anim Sci; 2017 Dec; 95(12):5197-5207. PubMed ID: 29293760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.