174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25928098)
1. Genomic best linear unbiased prediction method including imprinting effects for genomic evaluation.
Nishio M; Satoh M
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Apr; 47(1):32. PubMed ID: 25928098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Genomic Prediction Using Multi-trait Weighted GBLUP Accounting for Heterogeneous Variances and Covariances Across the Genome.
Karaman E; Lund MS; Anche MT; Janss L; Su G
G3 (Bethesda); 2018 Nov; 8(11):3549-3558. PubMed ID: 30194089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Empirical and deterministic accuracies of across-population genomic prediction.
Wientjes YC; Veerkamp RF; Bijma P; Bovenhuis H; Schrooten C; Calus MP
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Feb; 47(1):5. PubMed ID: 25885467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. An efficient unified model for genome-wide association studies and genomic selection.
Li H; Su G; Jiang L; Bao Z
Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Aug; 49(1):64. PubMed ID: 28836943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Genomic best linear unbiased prediction method reflecting the degree of linkage disequilibrium.
Nishio M; Satoh M
J Anim Breed Genet; 2015 Oct; 132(5):357-65. PubMed ID: 25866073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Random forest estimation of genomic breeding values for disease susceptibility over different disease incidences and genomic architectures in simulated cow calibration groups.
Naderi S; Yin T; König S
J Dairy Sci; 2016 Sep; 99(9):7261-7273. PubMed ID: 27344385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Impact of QTL properties on the accuracy of multi-breed genomic prediction.
Wientjes YC; Calus MP; Goddard ME; Hayes BJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 May; 47(1):42. PubMed ID: 25951906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The importance of information on relatives for the prediction of genomic breeding values and the implications for the makeup of reference data sets in livestock breeding schemes.
Clark SA; Hickey JM; Daetwyler HD; van der Werf JH
Genet Sel Evol; 2012 Feb; 44(1):4. PubMed ID: 22321529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Different models of genetic variation and their effect on genomic evaluation.
Clark SA; Hickey JM; van der Werf JH
Genet Sel Evol; 2011 May; 43(1):18. PubMed ID: 21575265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Comparative analysis of the GBLUP, emBayesB, and GWAS algorithms to predict genetic values in large yellow croaker (Larimichthys crocea).
Dong L; Xiao S; Wang Q; Wang Z
BMC Genomics; 2016 Jun; 17():460. PubMed ID: 27301965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Factors affecting the accuracy of genomic prediction in joint pig populations.
Zhao W; Zhang Z; Wang Z; Ma P; Pan Y; Wang Q; Zhang Z
Animal; 2023 Oct; 17(10):100980. PubMed ID: 37797495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A novel genomic selection method combining GBLUP and LASSO.
Li H; Wang J; Bao Z
Genetica; 2015 Jun; 143(3):299-304. PubMed ID: 25655266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Modeling heterogeneous (co)variances from adjacent-SNP groups improves genomic prediction for milk protein composition traits.
Gebreyesus G; Lund MS; Buitenhuis B; Bovenhuis H; Poulsen NA; Janss LG
Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Dec; 49(1):89. PubMed ID: 29207947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of GBLUP, BayesB and elastic net for genomic prediction in Chinese Simmental beef cattle.
Wang X; Miao J; Chang T; Xia J; An B; Li Y; Xu L; Zhang L; Gao X; Li J; Gao H
PLoS One; 2019; 14(2):e0210442. PubMed ID: 30817758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Development of genomic predictions for Angus cattle in Brazil incorporating genotypes from related American sires.
Campos GS; Cardoso FF; Gomes CCG; Domingues R; de Almeida Regitano LC; de Sena Oliveira MC; de Oliveira HN; Carvalheiro R; Albuquerque LG; Miller S; Misztal I; Lourenco D
J Anim Sci; 2022 Feb; 100(2):. PubMed ID: 35031806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Accuracy of prediction of genomic breeding values for residual feed intake and carcass and meat quality traits in Bos taurus, Bos indicus, and composite beef cattle.
Bolormaa S; Pryce JE; Kemper K; Savin K; Hayes BJ; Barendse W; Zhang Y; Reich CM; Mason BA; Bunch RJ; Harrison BE; Reverter A; Herd RM; Tier B; Graser HU; Goddard ME
J Anim Sci; 2013 Jul; 91(7):3088-104. PubMed ID: 23658330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Genomic studies with preselected markers reveal dominance effects influencing growth traits in Eucalyptus nitens.
Thumma BR; Joyce KR; Jacobs A
G3 (Bethesda); 2022 Jan; 12(1):. PubMed ID: 34791210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
