471 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27235308)
21. Accuracy of Genomic Prediction in Synthetic Populations Depending on the Number of Parents, Relatedness, and Ancestral Linkage Disequilibrium.
Schopp P; Müller D; Technow F; Melchinger AE
Genetics; 2017 Jan; 205(1):441-454. PubMed ID: 28049710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Improved precision of QTL mapping using a nonlinear Bayesian method in a multi-breed population leads to greater accuracy of across-breed genomic predictions.
Kemper KE; Reich CM; Bowman PJ; Vander Jagt CJ; Chamberlain AJ; Mason BA; Hayes BJ; Goddard ME
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Apr; 47(1):29. PubMed ID: 25887988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Dissecting genetic architecture of startle response in Drosophila melanogaster using multi-omics information.
Xue A; Wang H; Zhu J
Sci Rep; 2017 Sep; 7(1):12367. PubMed ID: 28959013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Charting the genotype-phenotype map: lessons from the Drosophila melanogaster Genetic Reference Panel.
Mackay TFC; Huang W
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol; 2018 Jan; 7(1):. PubMed ID: 28834395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Efficient weighting methods for genomic best linear-unbiased prediction (BLUP) adapted to the genetic architectures of quantitative traits.
Ren D; An L; Li B; Qiao L; Liu W
Heredity (Edinb); 2021 Feb; 126(2):320-334. PubMed ID: 32980863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Impact of QTL properties on the accuracy of multi-breed genomic prediction.
Wientjes YC; Calus MP; Goddard ME; Hayes BJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 May; 47(1):42. PubMed ID: 25951906
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Accuracy of whole-genome prediction using a genetic architecture-enhanced variance-covariance matrix.
Zhang Z; Erbe M; He J; Ober U; Gao N; Zhang H; Simianer H; Li J
G3 (Bethesda); 2015 Feb; 5(4):615-27. PubMed ID: 25670771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Canopy Temperature and Vegetation Indices from High-Throughput Phenotyping Improve Accuracy of Pedigree and Genomic Selection for Grain Yield in Wheat.
Rutkoski J; Poland J; Mondal S; Autrique E; Pérez LG; Crossa J; Reynolds M; Singh R
G3 (Bethesda); 2016 Sep; 6(9):2799-808. PubMed ID: 27402362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Genomic prediction of reproduction traits for Merino sheep.
Bolormaa S; Brown DJ; Swan AA; van der Werf JHJ; Hayes BJ; Daetwyler HD
Anim Genet; 2017 Jun; 48(3):338-348. PubMed ID: 28211150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Genomic evaluation of feed efficiency component traits in Duroc pigs using 80K, 650K and whole-genome sequence variants.
Zhang C; Kemp RA; Stothard P; Wang Z; Boddicker N; Krivushin K; Dekkers J; Plastow G
Genet Sel Evol; 2018 Apr; 50(1):14. PubMed ID: 29625549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Genomic Model with Correlation Between Additive and Dominance Effects.
Xiang T; Christensen OF; Vitezica ZG; Legarra A
Genetics; 2018 Jul; 209(3):711-723. PubMed ID: 29743175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Cross-Study Comparison Reveals Common Genomic, Network, and Functional Signatures of Desiccation Resistance in Drosophila melanogaster.
Telonis-Scott M; Sgrò CM; Hoffmann AA; Griffin PC
Mol Biol Evol; 2016 Apr; 33(4):1053-67. PubMed ID: 26733490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Genomic Analysis of Genotype-by-Social Environment Interaction for
Rohde PD; Gaertner B; Ward K; Sørensen P; Mackay TFC
Genetics; 2017 Aug; 206(4):1969-1984. PubMed ID: 28550016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Using selection index theory to estimate consistency of multi-locus linkage disequilibrium across populations.
Wientjes YC; Veerkamp RF; Calus MP
BMC Genet; 2015 Jul; 16():87. PubMed ID: 26187501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A novel genomic selection method combining GBLUP and LASSO.
Li H; Wang J; Bao Z
Genetica; 2015 Jun; 143(3):299-304. PubMed ID: 25655266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparing genomic prediction accuracy from purebred, crossbred and combined purebred and crossbred reference populations in sheep.
Moghaddar N; Swan AA; van der Werf JH
Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Sep; 46(1):58. PubMed ID: 25927315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Functional Validation of Candidate Genes Detected by Genomic Feature Models.
Rohde PD; Østergaard S; Kristensen TN; Sørensen P; Loeschcke V; Mackay TFC; Sarup P
G3 (Bethesda); 2018 May; 8(5):1659-1668. PubMed ID: 29519937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Whole-genome sequence-based genomic prediction in laying chickens with different genomic relationship matrices to account for genetic architecture.
Ni G; Cavero D; Fangmann A; Erbe M; Simianer H
Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Jan; 49(1):8. PubMed ID: 28093063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Predictive performance of genomic selection methods for carcass traits in Hanwoo beef cattle: impacts of the genetic architecture.
Mehrban H; Lee DH; Moradi MH; IlCho C; Naserkheil M; Ibáñez-Escriche N
Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Jan; 49(1):1. PubMed ID: 28093066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
