144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26523560)
1. Comparison of iterated single-step and Bayesian regressions on genomic evaluations for age at 100 kg in swine.
Freitas MS; Freitas LS; Weber T; Yamaki M; Cantão ME; Peixoto JO; Ledur MC
J Anim Sci; 2015 Oct; 93(10):4675-83. PubMed ID: 26523560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Empirical comparison between different methods for genomic prediction of number of piglets born alive in moderate sized breeding populations.
Fangmann A; Sharifi RA; Heinkel J; Danowski K; Schrade H; Erbe M; Simianer H
J Anim Sci; 2017 Apr; 95(4):1434-1443. PubMed ID: 28464085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Indirect predictions with a large number of genotyped animals using the algorithm for proven and young.
Garcia ALS; Masuda Y; Tsuruta S; Miller S; Misztal I; Lourenco D
J Anim Sci; 2020 Jun; 98(6):. PubMed ID: 32374831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Genomic selection models double the accuracy of predicted breeding values for bacterial cold water disease resistance compared to a traditional pedigree-based model in rainbow trout aquaculture.
Vallejo RL; Leeds TD; Gao G; Parsons JE; Martin KE; Evenhuis JP; Fragomeni BO; Wiens GD; Palti Y
Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Feb; 49(1):17. PubMed ID: 28148220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Efficient large-scale single-step evaluations and indirect genomic prediction of genotyped selection candidates.
Vandenplas J; Ten Napel J; Darbaghshahi SN; Evans R; Calus MPL; Veerkamp R; Cromie A; Mäntysaari EA; Strandén I
Genet Sel Evol; 2023 Jun; 55(1):37. PubMed ID: 37291510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Crossbreed evaluations in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor using adjusted realized relationship matrices.
Lourenco DA; Tsuruta S; Fragomeni BO; Chen CY; Herring WO; Misztal I
J Anim Sci; 2016 Mar; 94(3):909-19. PubMed ID: 27065253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Methods for genomic evaluation of a relatively small genotyped dairy population and effect of genotyped cow information in multiparity analyses.
Lourenco DA; Misztal I; Tsuruta S; Aguilar I; Ezra E; Ron M; Shirak A; Weller JI
J Dairy Sci; 2014 Mar; 97(3):1742-52. PubMed ID: 24472123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of alternative approaches to single-trait genomic prediction using genotyped and non-genotyped Hanwoo beef cattle.
Lee J; Cheng H; Garrick D; Golden B; Dekkers J; Park K; Lee D; Fernando R
Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Jan; 49(1):2. PubMed ID: 28093065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Genetic evaluation using single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in American Angus.
Lourenco DA; Tsuruta S; Fragomeni BO; Masuda Y; Aguilar I; Legarra A; Bertrand JK; Amen TS; Wang L; Moser DW; Misztal I
J Anim Sci; 2015 Jun; 93(6):2653-62. PubMed ID: 26115253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Factors affecting GEBV accuracy with single-step Bayesian models.
Zhou L; Mrode R; Zhang S; Zhang Q; Li B; Liu JF
Heredity (Edinb); 2018 Jan; 120(2):100-109. PubMed ID: 29167557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Single-step genomic evaluation with metafounders for feed conversion ratio and average daily gain in Danish Landrace and Yorkshire pigs.
Fu C; Ostersen T; Christensen OF; Xiang T
Genet Sel Evol; 2021 Oct; 53(1):79. PubMed ID: 34620083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Development of genomic predictions for harvest and carcass weight in channel catfish.
Garcia ALS; Bosworth B; Waldbieser G; Misztal I; Tsuruta S; Lourenco DAL
Genet Sel Evol; 2018 Dec; 50(1):66. PubMed ID: 30547740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Genomic evaluation of Brown Swiss dairy cattle with limited national genotype data and integrated external information.
Luštrek B; Vandenplas J; Gorjanc G; Potočnik K
J Dairy Sci; 2021 May; 104(5):5738-5754. PubMed ID: 33685705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Accuracy of breeding values in small genotyped populations using different sources of external information-A simulation study.
Andonov S; Lourenco DAL; Fragomeni BO; Masuda Y; Pocrnic I; Tsuruta S; Misztal I
J Dairy Sci; 2017 Jan; 100(1):395-401. PubMed ID: 28341049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Genomic predictions based on haplotypes fitted as pseudo-SNP for milk production and udder type traits and SCS in French dairy goats.
Teissier M; Larroque H; Brito LF; Rupp R; Schenkel FS; Robert-Granié C
J Dairy Sci; 2020 Dec; 103(12):11559-11573. PubMed ID: 33041034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Theoretical accuracy for indirect predictions based on SNP effects from single-step GBLUP.
Garcia A; Aguilar I; Legarra A; Tsuruta S; Misztal I; Lourenco D
Genet Sel Evol; 2022 Sep; 54(1):66. PubMed ID: 36162979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Accuracy of genomic prediction using deregressed breeding values estimated from purebred and crossbred offspring phenotypes in pigs.
Hidalgo AM; Bastiaansen JW; Lopes MS; Veroneze R; Groenen MA; de Koning DJ
J Anim Sci; 2015 Jul; 93(7):3313-21. PubMed ID: 26440000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Accuracies of genomic prediction of feed efficiency traits using different prediction and validation methods in an experimental Nelore cattle population.
Silva RM; Fragomeni BO; Lourenco DA; Magalhães AF; Irano N; Carvalheiro R; Canesin RC; Mercadante ME; Boligon AA; Baldi FS; Misztal I; Albuquerque LG
J Anim Sci; 2016 Sep; 94(9):3613-3623. PubMed ID: 27898889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
