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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28720710)

  • 1. Application of Response Surface Methods To Determine Conditions for Optimal Genomic Prediction.
    Howard R; Carriquiry AL; Beavis WD
    G3 (Bethesda); 2017 Sep; 7(9):3103-3113. PubMed ID: 28720710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Parametric and nonparametric statistical methods for genomic selection of traits with additive and epistatic genetic architectures.
    Howard R; Carriquiry AL; Beavis WD
    G3 (Bethesda); 2014 Apr; 4(6):1027-46. PubMed ID: 24727289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of genetic architecture on the prediction accuracy of quantitative traits in samples of unrelated individuals.
    Morgante F; Huang W; Maltecca C; Mackay TFC
    Heredity (Edinb); 2018 Jun; 120(6):500-514. PubMed ID: 29426878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Empirical and deterministic accuracies of across-population genomic prediction.
    Wientjes YC; Veerkamp RF; Bijma P; Bovenhuis H; Schrooten C; Calus MP
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Feb; 47(1):5. PubMed ID: 25885467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Accuracy of prediction of simulated polygenic phenotypes and their underlying quantitative trait loci genotypes using real or imputed whole-genome markers in cattle.
    Hassani S; Saatchi M; Fernando RL; Garrick DJ
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Dec; 47():99. PubMed ID: 26698091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of Genomic Selection Models to Predict Flowering Time and Spike Grain Number in Two Hexaploid Wheat Doubled Haploid Populations.
    Thavamanikumar S; Dolferus R; Thumma BR
    G3 (Bethesda); 2015 Jul; 5(10):1991-8. PubMed ID: 26206349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Genomic best linear unbiased prediction method including imprinting effects for genomic evaluation.
    Nishio M; Satoh M
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Apr; 47(1):32. PubMed ID: 25928098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Marker-based estimation of heritability in immortal populations.
    Kruijer W; Boer MP; Malosetti M; Flood PJ; Engel B; Kooke R; Keurentjes JJ; van Eeuwijk FA
    Genetics; 2015 Feb; 199(2):379-98. PubMed ID: 25527288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Prediction accuracies for growth and wood attributes of interior spruce in space using genotyping-by-sequencing.
    Gamal El-Dien O; Ratcliffe B; Klápště J; Chen C; Porth I; El-Kassaby YA
    BMC Genomics; 2015 May; 16(1):370. PubMed ID: 25956247
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Effects of number of training generations on genomic prediction for various traits in a layer chicken population.
    Weng Z; Wolc A; Shen X; Fernando RL; Dekkers JC; Arango J; Settar P; Fulton JE; O'Sullivan NP; Garrick DJ
    Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Mar; 48():22. PubMed ID: 26992471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters.
    Muir WM
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2007 Dec; 124(6):342-55. PubMed ID: 18076471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Impact of QTL minor allele frequency on genomic evaluation using real genotype data and simulated phenotypes in Japanese Black cattle.
    Uemoto Y; Sasaki S; Kojima T; Sugimoto Y; Watanabe T
    BMC Genet; 2015 Nov; 16():134. PubMed ID: 26586567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Determination of the optimal number of markers and individuals in a training population necessary for maximum prediction accuracy in F
    Peixoto LA; Bhering LL; Cruz CD
    Genet Mol Res; 2016 Nov; 15(4):. PubMed ID: 27886337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Modeling Epistasis in Genomic Selection.
    Jiang Y; Reif JC
    Genetics; 2015 Oct; 201(2):759-68. PubMed ID: 26219298
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Genomic prediction of genetic merit using LD-based haplotypes in the Nordic Holstein population.
    Cuyabano BC; Su G; Lund MS
    BMC Genomics; 2014 Dec; 15(1):1171. PubMed ID: 25539631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Genome-wide prediction for complex traits under the presence of dominance effects in simulated populations using GBLUP and machine learning methods.
    Alves AAC; da Costa RM; Bresolin T; Fernandes Júnior GA; Espigolan R; Ribeiro AMF; Carvalheiro R; de Albuquerque LG
    J Anim Sci; 2020 Jun; 98(6):. PubMed ID: 32474602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.