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 *

167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25887562)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. Accuracy of genomic prediction of purebreds for cross bred performance in pigs.
    Hidalgo AM; Bastiaansen JW; Lopes MS; Calus MP; de Koning DJ
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2016 Dec; 133(6):443-451. PubMed ID: 27087113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Imputation of genotypes in Danish purebred and two-way crossbred pigs using low-density panels.
    Xiang T; Ma P; Ostersen T; Legarra A; Christensen OF
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Jun; 47(1):54. PubMed ID: 26122927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Genetic evaluation for three-way crossbreeding.
    Christensen OF; Legarra A; Lund MS; Su G
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Dec; 47():98. PubMed ID: 26694257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. 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]  

  • 46. Which Individuals To Choose To Update the Reference Population? Minimizing the Loss of Genetic Diversity in Animal Genomic Selection Programs.
    Eynard SE; Croiseau P; Laloë D; Fritz S; Calus MPL; Restoux G
    G3 (Bethesda); 2018 Jan; 8(1):113-121. PubMed ID: 29133511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Comparison of selective genotyping strategies for prediction of breeding values in a population undergoing selection.
    Boligon AA; Long N; Albuquerque LG; Weigel KA; Gianola D; Rosa GJ
    J Anim Sci; 2012 Dec; 90(13):4716-22. PubMed ID: 23372045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Comparison of Bayesian models to estimate direct genomic values in multi-breed commercial beef cattle.
    Rolf MM; Garrick DJ; Fountain T; Ramey HR; Weaber RL; Decker JE; Pollak EJ; Schnabel RD; Taylor JF
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Apr; 47(1):23. PubMed ID: 25884158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Balanced selection on purebred and crossbred performance increases gain in crossbreds.
    Esfandyari H; Berg P; Sørensen AC
    Genet Sel Evol; 2018 Mar; 50(1):8. PubMed ID: 29566647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. 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]  

  • 52. 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]  

  • 53. Application of single-step genomic evaluation for crossbred performance in pig.
    Xiang T; Nielsen B; Su G; Legarra A; Christensen OF
    J Anim Sci; 2016 Mar; 94(3):936-48. PubMed ID: 27065256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Approximated prediction of genomic selection accuracy when reference and candidate populations are related.
    Elsen JM
    Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Mar; 48():18. PubMed ID: 26940536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. Genomic selection of purebred animals for crossbred performance in the presence of dominant gene action.
    Zeng J; Toosi A; Fernando RL; Dekkers JC; Garrick DJ
    Genet Sel Evol; 2013 Apr; 45(1):11. PubMed ID: 23621868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. 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]  

  • 58. 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]  

  • 59. Genomic selection in admixed and crossbred populations.
    Toosi A; Fernando RL; Dekkers JC
    J Anim Sci; 2010 Jan; 88(1):32-46. PubMed ID: 19749023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Comparison of joint versus purebred genomic evaluation in the French multi-breed dairy goat population.
    Carillier C; Larroque H; Robert-Granié C
    Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Oct; 46(1):67. PubMed ID: 25927866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.