269 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30616709)
1. Impact of genotyping strategy on the accuracy of genomic prediction in simulated populations of purebred swine.
Li X; Zhang Z; Liu X; Chen Y
Animal; 2019 Sep; 13(9):1804-1810. PubMed ID: 30616709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The impact of selective genotyping on the response to selection using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction.
Howard JT; Rathje TA; Bruns CE; Wilson-Wells DF; Kachman SD; Spangler ML
J Anim Sci; 2018 Nov; 96(11):4532-4542. PubMed ID: 30107560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Detecting effective starting point of genomic selection by divergent trends from best linear unbiased prediction and single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction in pigs, beef cattle, and broilers.
Abdollahi-Arpanahi R; Lourenco D; Misztal I
J Anim Sci; 2021 Sep; 99(9):. PubMed ID: 34390341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Empirical comparison between different methods for genomic prediction of number of piglets born alive in moderate sized breeding populations.
Fangmann A; Sharifi RA; Heinkel J; Danowski K; Schrade H; Erbe M; Simianer H
J Anim Sci; 2017 Apr; 95(4):1434-1443. PubMed ID: 28464085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Improving accuracy of direct and maternal genetic effects in genomic evaluations using pooled boar semen: a simulation study1.
Maiorano AM; Assen A; Bijma P; Chen CY; Silva JAIV; Herring WO; Tsuruta S; Misztal I; Lourenco DAL
J Anim Sci; 2019 Jul; 97(8):3237-3245. PubMed ID: 31240314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Prediction accuracy for a simulated maternally affected trait of beef cattle using different genomic evaluation models.
Lourenco DA; Misztal I; Wang H; Aguilar I; Tsuruta S; Bertrand JK
J Anim Sci; 2013 Sep; 91(9):4090-8. PubMed ID: 23893997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Are evaluations on young genotyped animals benefiting from the past generations?
Lourenco DA; Misztal I; Tsuruta S; Aguilar I; Lawlor TJ; Forni S; Weller JI
J Dairy Sci; 2014; 97(6):3930-42. PubMed ID: 24679931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of conventional BLUP and single-step genomic BLUP evaluations for yearling weight and carcass traits in Hanwoo beef cattle using single trait and multi-trait models.
Mehrban H; Lee DH; Naserkheil M; Moradi MH; Ibáñez-Escriche N
PLoS One; 2019; 14(10):e0223352. PubMed ID: 31609979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Weighted single-step genomic BLUP improves accuracy of genomic breeding values for protein content in French dairy goats: a quantitative trait influenced by a major gene.
Teissier M; Larroque H; Robert-Granié C
Genet Sel Evol; 2018 Jun; 50(1):31. PubMed ID: 29907084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Efficient approximation of reliabilities for single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor models with the Algorithm for Proven and Young.
Bermann M; Lourenco D; Misztal I
J Anim Sci; 2022 Jan; 100(1):. PubMed ID: 34877603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Improving the accuracy of genomic evaluation for linear body measurement traits using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction in Hanwoo beef cattle.
Naserkheil M; Lee DH; Mehrban H
BMC Genet; 2020 Dec; 21(1):144. PubMed ID: 33267771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Imputation of non-genotyped F1 dams to improve genetic gain in swine crossbreeding programs.
See GM; Fix JS; Schwab CR; Spangler ML
J Anim Sci; 2022 May; 100(5):. PubMed ID: 35451025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Technical note: Impact of pedigree depth on convergence of single-step genomic BLUP in a purebred swine population.
Pocrnic I; Lourenco DAL; Bradford HL; Chen CY; Misztal I
J Anim Sci; 2017 Aug; 95(8):3391-3395. PubMed ID: 28805917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Determining the stability of accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values in future generations in commercial pig populations.
Hollifield MK; Lourenco D; Bermann M; Howard JT; Misztal I
J Anim Sci; 2021 Apr; 99(4):. PubMed ID: 33733277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Impact and utility of shallow pedigree using single-step genomic BLUP for prediction of unbiased genomic breeding values.
Gowane GR; Alex R; Mukherjee A; Vohra V
Trop Anim Health Prod; 2022 Oct; 54(6):339. PubMed ID: 36210357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Genomic prediction using pooled data in a single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction framework.
Baller JL; Kachman SD; Kuehn LA; Spangler ML
J Anim Sci; 2020 Jun; 98(6):. PubMed ID: 32497209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Short communication: Single-step genomic evaluation of milk production traits using multiple-trait random regression model in Chinese Holsteins.
Kang H; Ning C; Zhou L; Zhang S; Yan Q; Liu JF
J Dairy Sci; 2018 Dec; 101(12):11143-11149. PubMed ID: 30268613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Single-step genomic prediction of fruit-quality traits using phenotypic records of non-genotyped relatives in citrus.
Imai A; Kuniga T; Yoshioka T; Nonaka K; Mitani N; Fukamachi H; Hiehata N; Yamamoto M; Hayashi T
PLoS One; 2019; 14(8):e0221880. PubMed ID: 31465502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
