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 *

287 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29748199)

  • 1. GWAS by GBLUP: Single and Multimarker EMMAX and Bayes Factors, with an Example in Detection of a Major Gene for Horse Gait.
    Legarra A; Ricard A; Varona L
    G3 (Bethesda); 2018 Jul; 8(7):2301-2308. PubMed ID: 29748199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Using markers with large effect in genetic and genomic predictions.
    Lopes MS; Bovenhuis H; van Son M; Nordbø Ø; Grindflek EH; Knol EF; Bastiaansen JW
    J Anim Sci; 2017 Jan; 95(1):59-71. PubMed ID: 28177367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. An efficient unified model for genome-wide association studies and genomic selection.
    Li H; Su G; Jiang L; Bao Z
    Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Aug; 49(1):64. PubMed ID: 28836943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A Multiple-Trait Bayesian Lasso for Genome-Enabled Analysis and Prediction of Complex Traits.
    Gianola D; Fernando RL
    Genetics; 2020 Feb; 214(2):305-331. PubMed ID: 31879318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Genomic Prediction Using Multi-trait Weighted GBLUP Accounting for Heterogeneous Variances and Covariances Across the Genome.
    Karaman E; Lund MS; Anche MT; Janss L; Su G
    G3 (Bethesda); 2018 Nov; 8(11):3549-3558. PubMed ID: 30194089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. A multi-trait Bayesian method for mapping QTL and genomic prediction.
    Kemper KE; Bowman PJ; Hayes BJ; Visscher PM; Goddard ME
    Genet Sel Evol; 2018 Mar; 50(1):10. PubMed ID: 29571285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Different models of genetic variation and their effect on genomic evaluation.
    Clark SA; Hickey JM; van der Werf JH
    Genet Sel Evol; 2011 May; 43(1):18. PubMed ID: 21575265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Novel Bayesian Networks for Genomic Prediction of Developmental Traits in Biomass Sorghum.
    Dos Santos JPR; Fernandes SB; McCoy S; Lozano R; Brown PJ; Leakey ADB; Buckler ES; Garcia AAF; Gore MA
    G3 (Bethesda); 2020 Feb; 10(2):769-781. PubMed ID: 31852730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Across population genomic prediction scenarios in which Bayesian variable selection outperforms GBLUP.
    van den Berg S; Calus MP; Meuwissen TH; Wientjes YC
    BMC Genet; 2015 Dec; 16():146. PubMed ID: 26698836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Impact of prior specifications in a shrinkage-inducing Bayesian model for quantitative trait mapping and genomic prediction.
    Knürr T; Läärä E; Sillanpää MJ
    Genet Sel Evol; 2013 Jul; 45(1):24. PubMed ID: 23834140
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Genomic predictions can accelerate selection for resistance against Piscirickettsia salmonis in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).
    Bangera R; Correa K; Lhorente JP; Figueroa R; Yáñez JM
    BMC Genomics; 2017 Jan; 18(1):121. PubMed ID: 28143402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Genome-wide prediction using Bayesian additive regression trees.
    Waldmann P
    Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Jun; 48(1):42. PubMed ID: 27286957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Genomic best linear unbiased prediction method reflecting the degree of linkage disequilibrium.
    Nishio M; Satoh M
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2015 Oct; 132(5):357-65. PubMed ID: 25866073
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Performance of Bayesian and BLUP alphabets for genomic prediction: analysis, comparison and results.
    Meher PK; Rustgi S; Kumar A
    Heredity (Edinb); 2022 Jun; 128(6):519-530. PubMed ID: 35508540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Investigating the Performance of Frequentist and Bayesian Techniques in Genomic Evaluation.
    Sahebalam H; Gholizadeh M; Hafezian H
    Biochem Genet; 2024 Jul; ():. PubMed ID: 38951354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.