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 *

283 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26271246)

  • 21. Effect of predictor traits on accuracy of genomic breeding values for feed intake based on a limited cow reference population.
    Pszczola M; Veerkamp RF; de Haas Y; Wall E; Strabel T; Calus MP
    Animal; 2013 Nov; 7(11):1759-68. PubMed ID: 23915541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. National single-step genomic method that integrates multi-national genomic information.
    Vandenplas J; Spehar M; Potocnik K; Gengler N; Gorjanc G
    J Dairy Sci; 2017 Jan; 100(1):465-478. PubMed ID: 27865486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges.
    Hayes BJ; Bowman PJ; Chamberlain AJ; Goddard ME
    J Dairy Sci; 2009 Feb; 92(2):433-43. PubMed ID: 19164653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Deregressed EBV as the response variable yield more reliable genomic predictions than traditional EBV in pure-bred pigs.
    Ostersen T; Christensen OF; Henryon M; Nielsen B; Su G; Madsen P
    Genet Sel Evol; 2011 Nov; 43(1):38. PubMed ID: 22070746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Response to genomic selection: the Bulmer effect and the potential of genomic selection when the number of phenotypic records is limiting.
    Van Grevenhof EM; Van Arendonk JA; Bijma P
    Genet Sel Evol; 2012 Aug; 44(1):26. PubMed ID: 22862849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Use of genomic information to exploit genotype-by-environment interactions for body weight of broiler chicken in bio-secure and production environments.
    Chu TT; Bastiaansen JWM; Berg P; Romé H; Marois D; Henshall J; Jensen J
    Genet Sel Evol; 2019 Sep; 51(1):50. PubMed ID: 31533614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Weighted single-step genomic BLUP improves accuracy of genomic breeding values for protein content in French dairy goats: a quantitative trait influenced by a major gene.
    Teissier M; Larroque H; Robert-Granié C
    Genet Sel Evol; 2018 Jun; 50(1):31. PubMed ID: 29907084
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Estimation of genetic parameters and breeding values for feed intake and energy balance using pedigree relationships or single-step genomic evaluation in Holstein Friesian cows.
    Harder I; Stamer E; Junge W; Thaller G
    J Dairy Sci; 2020 Mar; 103(3):2498-2513. PubMed ID: 31864743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Validation of simultaneous deregression of cow and bull breeding values and derivation of appropriate weights.
    Calus MPL; Vandenplas J; Ten Napel J; Veerkamp RF
    J Dairy Sci; 2016 Aug; 99(8):6403-6419. PubMed ID: 27209130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Genomic prediction of breeding values using previously estimated SNP variances.
    Calus MP; Schrooten C; Veerkamp RF
    Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Sep; 46(1):52. PubMed ID: 25928875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. A comparison of identity-by-descent and identity-by-state matrices that are used for genetic evaluation and estimation of variance components.
    Fernando RL; Cheng H; Sun X; Garrick DJ
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2017 Jun; 134(3):213-223. PubMed ID: 28508481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. The effect of genomic information on optimal contribution selection in livestock breeding programs.
    Clark SA; Kinghorn BP; Hickey JM; van der Werf JH
    Genet Sel Evol; 2013 Oct; 45(1):44. PubMed ID: 24171942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effects of ignoring inbreeding in model-based accuracy for BLUP and SSGBLUP.
    Aguilar I; Fernandez EN; Blasco A; Ravagnolo O; Legarra A
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2020 Jul; 137(4):356-364. PubMed ID: 32080913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Bias in estimates of variance components in populations undergoing genomic selection: a simulation study.
    Gao H; Madsen P; Aamand GP; Thomasen JR; Sørensen AC; Jensen J
    BMC Genomics; 2019 Dec; 20(1):956. PubMed ID: 31818251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A low-marker density implementation of genomic selection in aquaculture using within-family genomic breeding values.
    Lillehammer M; Meuwissen TH; Sonesson AK
    Genet Sel Evol; 2013 Oct; 45(1):39. PubMed ID: 24127852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Identity-by-descent genomic selection using selective and sparse genotyping for binary traits.
    Ødegård J; Meuwissen TH
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Feb; 47(1):8. PubMed ID: 25888522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Genotyping strategies for genomic selection in small dairy cattle populations.
    Jiménez-Montero JA; González-Recio O; Alenda R
    Animal; 2012 Aug; 6(8):1216-24. PubMed ID: 23217224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Reliabilities of genomic estimated breeding values in Danish Jersey.
    Thomasen JR; Guldbrandtsen B; Su G; Brøndum RF; Lund MS
    Animal; 2012 May; 6(5):789-96. PubMed ID: 22558926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.