100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26125833)
41. Genomic Predictions With Nonadditive Effects Improved Estimates of Additive Effects and Predictions of Total Genetic Values in
Calleja-Rodriguez A; Chen Z; Suontama M; Pan J; Wu HX
Front Plant Sci; 2021; 12():666820. PubMed ID: 34305966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. 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]
43. Quantifying the contribution of dominance deviation effects to complex trait variation in biobank-scale data.
Pazokitoroudi A; Chiu AM; Burch KS; Pasaniuc B; Sankararaman S
Am J Hum Genet; 2021 May; 108(5):799-808. PubMed ID: 33811807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Estimation of Additive and Dominance Genetic Effects on Body Weight, Carcass and Ham Quality Traits in Heavy Pigs.
Bonfatti V; Rostellato R; Carnier P
Animals (Basel); 2021 Feb; 11(2):. PubMed ID: 33670417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Genetic analysis of calf market weight and carcass traits in Japanese Black cattle.
Shojo M; Okanishi T; Anada K; Oyama K; Mukai F
J Anim Sci; 2006 Oct; 84(10):2617-22. PubMed ID: 16971561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. 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]
47. Genic and non-genic SNP contributions to additive and dominance genetic effects in purebred and crossbred pig traits.
Mohammadpanah M; Ayatollahi Mehrgardi A; Gilbert H; Larzul C; Mercat MJ; Esmailizadeh A; Momen M; Tusell L
Sci Rep; 2022 Mar; 12(1):3795. PubMed ID: 35264636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Quantitative genetics model as the unifying model for defining genomic relationship and inbreeding coefficient.
Wang C; Da Y
PLoS One; 2014; 9(12):e114484. PubMed ID: 25517971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. 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]
50. Impacts of additive, dominance, and inbreeding depression effects on genomic evaluation by combining two SNP chips in Canadian Yorkshire pigs bred in China.
Mei Q; Vitezica ZG; Li J; Zhao S; Legarra A; Xiang T
Genet Sel Evol; 2022 Oct; 54(1):69. PubMed ID: 36273127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Heritability estimations for diseases, coat color, body weight, and height in a birth cohort of Boxers.
Nielen AL; Janss LL; Knol BW
Am J Vet Res; 2001 Aug; 62(8):1198-206. PubMed ID: 11497438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Heritability estimates and predictive ability for pig meat quality traits using identity-by-state and identity-by-descent relationships in an F
Angarita Barajas BK; Cantet RJC; Steibel JP; Schrauf MF; Forneris NS
J Anim Breed Genet; 2023 Jan; 140(1):13-27. PubMed ID: 36300585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Dominance effects of ion transport and ion transport regulator genes on the final weight and backfat thickness of Landrace pigs by dominance deviation analysis.
Lee YS; Shin D; Song KD
Genes Genomics; 2018 Dec; 40(12):1331-1338. PubMed ID: 30136073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Changes in genetic parameters for fitness and growth traits in pigs under genomic selection.
Hidalgo J; Tsuruta S; Lourenco D; Masuda Y; Huang Y; Gray KA; Misztal I
J Anim Sci; 2020 Feb; 98(2):. PubMed ID: 31999338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Genetic Characterization of Dog Personality Traits.
Ilska J; Haskell MJ; Blott SC; Sánchez-Molano E; Polgar Z; Lofgren SE; Clements DN; Wiener P
Genetics; 2017 Jun; 206(2):1101-1111. PubMed ID: 28396505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Including dominance effects in the prediction model through locus-specific weights on heterozygous genotypes can greatly improve genomic predictive abilities.
Liu T; Luo C; Ma J; Wang Y; Shu D; Qu H; Su G
Heredity (Edinb); 2022 Mar; 128(3):154-158. PubMed ID: 35132207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Maternal, dominance and additive genetic effects in Nile tilapia; influence on growth, fillet yield and body size traits.
Joshi R; Woolliams JA; Meuwissen T; Gjøen HM
Heredity (Edinb); 2018 May; 120(5):452-462. PubMed ID: 29335620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Marker effects and heritability estimates using additive-dominance genomic architectures via artificial neural networks in Coffea canephora.
Coelho de Sousa I; Nascimento M; de Castro Sant'anna I; Teixeira Caixeta E; Ferreira Azevedo C; Damião Cruz C; Lopes da Silva F; Ruas Alkimim E; Campana Nascimento AC; Vergara Lopes Serão N
PLoS One; 2022; 17(1):e0262055. PubMed ID: 35081139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Analysis of genetic dominance in the UK Biobank.
Palmer DS; Zhou W; Abbott L; Wigdor EM; Baya N; Churchhouse C; Seed C; Poterba T; King D; Kanai M; Bloemendal A; Neale BM
Science; 2023 Mar; 379(6639):1341-1348. PubMed ID: 36996212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Prediction of slaughter age in pigs and assessment of the predictive value of phenotypic and genetic information using random forest.
Alsahaf A; Azzopardi G; Ducro B; Hanenberg E; Veerkamp RF; Petkov N
J Anim Sci; 2018 Dec; 96(12):4935-4943. PubMed ID: 30239725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
