224 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26676611)
1. Genomic prediction of growth in pigs based on a model including additive and dominance effects.
Lopes MS; Bastiaansen JW; Janss L; Knol EF; Bovenhuis H
J Anim Breed Genet; 2016 Jun; 133(3):180-6. PubMed ID: 26676611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Genomic prediction of crossbred performance based on purebred Landrace and Yorkshire data using a dominance model.
Esfandyari H; Bijma P; Henryon M; Christensen OF; Sørensen AC
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Jun; 48(1):40. PubMed ID: 27276993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Impact of fitting dominance and additive effects on accuracy of genomic prediction of breeding values in layers.
Heidaritabar M; Wolc A; Arango J; Zeng J; Settar P; Fulton JE; O'Sullivan NP; Bastiaansen JW; Fernando RL; Garrick DJ; Dekkers JC
J Anim Breed Genet; 2016 Oct; 133(5):334-46. PubMed ID: 27357473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Genomic evaluation by including dominance effects and inbreeding depression for purebred and crossbred performance with an application in pigs.
Xiang T; Christensen OF; Vitezica ZG; Legarra A
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Nov; 48(1):92. PubMed ID: 27887565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Pedigree and genomic evaluation of pigs using a terminal-cross model.
Tusell L; Gilbert H; Riquet J; Mercat MJ; Legarra A; Larzul C
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Apr; 48():32. PubMed ID: 27056443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Genomic BLUP including additive and dominant variation in purebreds and F1 crossbreds, with an application in pigs.
Vitezica ZG; Varona L; Elsen JM; Misztal I; Herring W; Legarra A
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Jan; 48():6. PubMed ID: 26825279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Genome-Enabled Estimates of Additive and Nonadditive Genetic Variances and Prediction of Apple Phenotypes Across Environments.
Kumar S; Molloy C; Muñoz P; Daetwyler H; Chagné D; Volz R
G3 (Bethesda); 2015 Oct; 5(12):2711-8. PubMed ID: 26497141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Accuracy of genome-enabled prediction exploring purebred and crossbred pig populations.
Veroneze R; Lopes MS; Hidalgo AM; Guimarães SE; Silva FF; Harlizius B; Lopes PS; Knol EF; M van Arendonk JA; Bastiaansen JW
J Anim Sci; 2015 Oct; 93(10):4684-91. PubMed ID: 26523561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Accounting for dominance to improve genomic evaluations of dairy cows for fertility and milk production traits.
Aliloo H; Pryce JE; González-Recio O; Cocks BG; Hayes BJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Feb; 48():8. PubMed ID: 26830030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Genomic prediction using models with dominance and imprinting effects for backfat thickness and average daily gain in Danish Duroc pigs.
Guo X; Christensen OF; Ostersen T; Wang Y; Lund MS; Su G
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Sep; 48(1):67. PubMed ID: 27623617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Genomic selection for crossbred performance accounting for breed-specific effects.
Lopes MS; Bovenhuis H; Hidalgo AM; van Arendonk JAM; Knol EF; Bastiaansen JWM
Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Jun; 49(1):51. PubMed ID: 28651536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Genomic estimation of additive and dominance effects and impact of accounting for dominance on accuracy of genomic evaluation in sheep populations.
Moghaddar N; van der Werf JHJ
J Anim Breed Genet; 2017 Dec; 134(6):453-462. PubMed ID: 28833716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dissecting total genetic variance into additive and dominance components of purebred and crossbred pig traits.
Tusell L; Gilbert H; Vitezica ZG; Mercat MJ; Legarra A; Larzul C
Animal; 2019 Nov; 13(11):2429-2439. PubMed ID: 31120005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Genomic Studies Reveal Substantial Dominant Effects and Improved Genomic Predictions in an Open-Pollinated Breeding Population of
Thavamanikumar S; Arnold RJ; Luo J; Thumma BR
G3 (Bethesda); 2020 Oct; 10(10):3751-3763. PubMed ID: 32788286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Dominance and epistatic genetic variances for litter size in pigs using genomic models.
Vitezica ZG; Reverter A; Herring W; Legarra A
Genet Sel Evol; 2018 Dec; 50(1):71. PubMed ID: 30577727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Estimating additive and non-additive genetic variances and predicting genetic merits using genome-wide dense single nucleotide polymorphism markers.
Su G; Christensen OF; Ostersen T; Henryon M; Lund MS
PLoS One; 2012; 7(9):e45293. PubMed ID: 23028912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
