650 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30577727)
21. Genomic dissection of repeatability considering additive and nonadditive genetic effects for semen production traits in beef and dairy bulls.
Nagai R; Kinukawa M; Watanabe T; Ogino A; Kurogi K; Adachi K; Satoh M; Uemoto Y
J Anim Sci; 2022 Sep; 100(9):. PubMed ID: 35860946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Pedigree-based estimation of covariance between dominance deviations and additive genetic effects in closed rabbit lines considering inbreeding and using a computationally simpler equivalent model.
Fernández EN; Legarra A; Martínez R; Sánchez JP; Baselga M
J Anim Breed Genet; 2017 Jun; 134(3):184-195. PubMed ID: 28508486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Genomic heritability estimates in sweet cherry reveal non-additive genetic variance is relevant for industry-prioritized traits.
Piaskowski J; Hardner C; Cai L; Zhao Y; Iezzoni A; Peace C
BMC Genet; 2018 Apr; 19(1):23. PubMed ID: 29636022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Variance estimates are similar using pedigree or genomic relationships with or without the use of metafounders or the algorithm for proven and young animals1.
Aldridge MN; Vandenplas J; Bergsma R; Calus MPL
J Anim Sci; 2020 Mar; 98(3):. PubMed ID: 31955195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Investigating the impact of non-additive genetic effects in the estimation of variance components and genomic predictions for heat tolerance and performance traits in crossbred and purebred pig populations.
de Oliveira LF; Brito LF; Marques DBD; da Silva DA; Lopes PS; Dos Santos CG; Johnson JS; Veroneze R
BMC Genom Data; 2023 Dec; 24(1):76. PubMed ID: 38093199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Estimating dominance genetic variances for growth traits in American Angus males using genomic models.
Garcia-Baccino CA; Lourenco DAL; Miller S; Cantet RJC; Vitezica ZG
J Anim Sci; 2020 Jan; 98(1):. PubMed ID: 31867623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Variance component estimates for alternative litter size traits in swine.
Putz AM; Tiezzi F; Maltecca C; Gray KA; Knauer MT
J Anim Sci; 2015 Nov; 93(11):5153-63. PubMed ID: 26641035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Genomic prediction of fertility and calving traits in Holstein cattle based on models including epistatic genetic effects.
Alves K; Brito LF; Schenkel FS
J Anim Breed Genet; 2023 Sep; 140(5):568-581. PubMed ID: 37254293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Quantitative genetics model as the unifying model for defining genomic relationship and inbreeding coefficient.
Wang C; Da Y
PLoS One; 2014; 9(12):e114484. PubMed ID: 25517971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Inbreeding depression load for litter size in Entrepelado and Retinto Iberian pig varieties1.
Casellas J; Ibáñez-Escriche N; Varona L; Rosas JP; Noguera JL
J Anim Sci; 2019 Apr; 97(5):1979-1986. PubMed ID: 30869129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. The contribution of dominance to the understanding of quantitative genetic variation.
Wellmann R; Bennewitz J
Genet Res (Camb); 2011 Apr; 93(2):139-54. PubMed ID: 21481291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Temporal dynamics of genetic parameters and SNP effects for performance and disorder traits in poultry undergoing genomic selection.
Richter J; Hidalgo J; Bussiman F; Breen V; Misztal I; Lourenco D
J Anim Sci; 2024 Jan; 102():. PubMed ID: 38576313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. 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]
36. Genomic prediction of hybrid crops allows disentangling dominance and epistasis.
González-Diéguez D; Legarra A; Charcosset A; Moreau L; Lehermeier C; Teyssèdre S; Vitezica ZG
Genetics; 2021 May; 218(1):. PubMed ID: 33864072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Genomic prediction with non-additive effects in beef cattle: stability of variance component and genetic effect estimates against population size.
Onogi A; Watanabe T; Ogino A; Kurogi K; Togashi K
BMC Genomics; 2021 Jul; 22(1):512. PubMed ID: 34233617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Estimation of additive and nonadditive genetic variances in Hereford, Gelbvieh, and Charolais by Method R.
Duangjinda M; Bertrand JK; Misztal I; Druet T
J Anim Sci; 2001 Dec; 79(12):2997-3001. PubMed ID: 11811452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Genomic Predictions With Nonadditive Effects Improved Estimates of Additive Effects and Predictions of Total Genetic Values in
Calleja-Rodriguez A; Chen Z; Suontama M; Pan J; Wu HX
Front Plant Sci; 2021; 12():666820. PubMed ID: 34305966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Effect of genomic selection and genotyping strategy on estimation of variance components in animal models using different relationship matrices.
Wang L; Janss LL; Madsen P; Henshall J; Huang CH; Marois D; Alemu S; Sørensen AC; Jensen J
Genet Sel Evol; 2020 Jun; 52(1):31. PubMed ID: 32527317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
