936 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26497141)
21. Mixed model methods for genomic prediction and variance component estimation of additive and dominance effects using SNP markers.
Da Y; Wang C; Wang S; Hu G
PLoS One; 2014; 9(1):e87666. PubMed ID: 24498162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Genetic Variance Partitioning and Genome-Wide Prediction with Allele Dosage Information in Autotetraploid Potato.
Endelman JB; Carley CAS; Bethke PC; Coombs JJ; Clough ME; da Silva WL; De Jong WS; Douches DS; Frederick CM; Haynes KG; Holm DG; Miller JC; Muñoz PR; Navarro FM; Novy RG; Palta JP; Porter GA; Rak KT; Sathuvalli VR; Thompson AL; Yencho GC
Genetics; 2018 May; 209(1):77-87. PubMed ID: 29514860
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Improving accuracies of genomic predictions for drought tolerance in maize by joint modeling of additive and dominance effects in multi-environment trials.
Dias KODG; Gezan SA; Guimarães CT; Nazarian A; da Costa E Silva L; Parentoni SN; de Oliveira Guimarães PE; de Oliveira Anoni C; Pádua JMV; de Oliveira Pinto M; Noda RW; Ribeiro CAG; de Magalhães JV; Garcia AAF; de Souza JC; Guimarães LJM; Pastina MM
Heredity (Edinb); 2018 Jul; 121(1):24-37. PubMed ID: 29472694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Temporal dynamics of genetic parameters and SNP effects for performance and disorder traits in poultry undergoing genomic selection.
Richter J; Hidalgo J; Bussiman F; Breen V; Misztal I; Lourenco D
J Anim Sci; 2024 Jan; 102():. PubMed ID: 38576313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Increased Prediction Ability in Norway Spruce Trials Using a Marker X Environment Interaction and Non-Additive Genomic Selection Model.
Chen ZQ; Baison J; Pan J; Westin J; Gil MRG; Wu HX
J Hered; 2019 Dec; 110(7):830-843. PubMed ID: 31629368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The contribution of dominance to phenotype prediction in a pine breeding and simulated population.
de Almeida Filho JE; Guimarães JF; E Silva FF; de Resende MD; Muñoz P; Kirst M; Resende MF
Heredity (Edinb); 2016 Jul; 117(1):33-41. PubMed ID: 27118156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Genomic Prediction of Additive and Non-additive Effects Using Genetic Markers and Pedigrees.
de Almeida Filho JE; Guimarães JFR; Fonsceca E Silva F; Vilela de Resende MD; Muñoz P; Kirst M; de Resende Júnior MFR
G3 (Bethesda); 2019 Aug; 9(8):2739-2748. PubMed ID: 31263059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Genomic prediction based on data from three layer lines: a comparison between linear methods.
Calus MP; Huang H; Vereijken A; Visscher J; Ten Napel J; Windig JJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Oct; 46(1):57. PubMed ID: 25927219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Integrating Nonadditive Genomic Relationship Matrices into the Study of Genetic Architecture of Complex Traits.
Nazarian A; Gezan SA
J Hered; 2016 Mar; 107(2):153-62. PubMed ID: 26712858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Genomic analysis of dominance effects on milk production and conformation traits in Fleckvieh cattle.
Ertl J; Legarra A; Vitezica ZG; Varona L; Edel C; Emmerling R; Götz KU
Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Jun; 46(1):40. PubMed ID: 24962065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Increased prediction accuracy in wheat breeding trials using a marker × environment interaction genomic selection model.
Lopez-Cruz M; Crossa J; Bonnett D; Dreisigacker S; Poland J; Jannink JL; Singh RP; Autrique E; de los Campos G
G3 (Bethesda); 2015 Feb; 5(4):569-82. PubMed ID: 25660166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Genomic prediction using imputed whole-genome sequence data in Holstein Friesian cattle.
van Binsbergen R; Calus MP; Bink MC; van Eeuwijk FA; Schrooten C; Veerkamp RF
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Sep; 47(1):71. PubMed ID: 26381777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Evaluation of nonadditive effects in yearling weight of tropical beef cattle.
Raidan FSS; Porto-Neto LR; Li Y; Lehnert SA; Vitezica ZG; Reverter A
J Anim Sci; 2018 Sep; 96(10):4028-4034. PubMed ID: 30032181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Accuracy of predicting genomic breeding values for residual feed intake in Angus and Charolais beef cattle.
Chen L; Schenkel F; Vinsky M; Crews DH; Li C
J Anim Sci; 2013 Oct; 91(10):4669-78. PubMed ID: 24078618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Genomic selection for fruit quality traits in apple (Malus×domestica Borkh.).
Kumar S; Chagné D; Bink MC; Volz RK; Whitworth C; Carlisle C
PLoS One; 2012; 7(5):e36674. PubMed ID: 22574211
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Genomic correlation: harnessing the benefit of combining two unrelated populations for genomic selection.
Porto-Neto LR; Barendse W; Henshall JM; McWilliam SM; Lehnert SA; Reverter A
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Nov; 47():84. PubMed ID: 26525050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
