BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

250 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30714281)

  • 21. Growth performance, carcass and meat quality of the Celta pig crossbred with Duroc and Landrance genotypes.
    Franco D; Vazquez JA; Lorenzo JM
    Meat Sci; 2014 Jan; 96(1):195-202. PubMed ID: 23896154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Correlative responses for carcass and meat quality traits to selection for ovulation rate or prenatal survival in French Large White pigs.
    Rosendo A; Druet T; Péry C; Bidanel JP
    J Anim Sci; 2010 Mar; 88(3):903-11. PubMed ID: 19966169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Transcriptomic analysis of the longissimus thoracis muscle in pigs has identified molecular regulatory patterns associated with meat quality.
    Chen Q; Chen Z; Sun Q; Zhang W; Wu F; Liu G; Wang T; Wang Z; Wang Q; Zhang J
    Genomics; 2024 Jan; 116(1):110779. PubMed ID: 38168627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Expression profiling analysis for genes related to meat quality and carcass traits during postnatal development of backfat in two pig breeds.
    Li M; Zhu L; Li X; Shuai S; Teng X; Xiao H; Li Q; Chen L; Guo Y; Wang J
    Sci China C Life Sci; 2008 Aug; 51(8):718-33. PubMed ID: 18677600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Carcass characteristics and fat depots in Iberian and F Large White × Landrace pigs intensively finished or raised outdoors in oak-tree forests.
    Bressan MC; Almeida J; Santos Silva J; Bettencourt C; Francisco A; Gama LT
    J Anim Sci; 2016 Jun; 94(6):2592-602. PubMed ID: 27285935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Meat quality comparison of Berkshire, Duroc and crossbred pigs sired by Berkshire and Duroc.
    Suzuki K; Shibata T; Kadowaki H; Abe H; Toyoshima T
    Meat Sci; 2003 May; 64(1):35-42. PubMed ID: 22062660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Effect of dietary kapok oil supplementation on growth performance, carcass traits, meat quality and sensory traits of pork in finishing-pigs.
    Maeda K; Kohira K; Kubota H; Yamanaka K; Saito K; Irie M
    Anim Sci J; 2017 Aug; 88(8):1066-1074. PubMed ID: 27891709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Multivariate genome-wide association studies on tenderness of Berkshire and Duroc pig breeds.
    Jang D; Yoon J; Taye M; Lee W; Kwon T; Shim S; Kim H
    Genes Genomics; 2018 Jul; 40(7):701-705. PubMed ID: 29934809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Cortisol-binding globulin and meat quality in five European lines of pigs.
    Geverink NA; Foury A; Plastow GS; Gil M; Gispert M; Hortós M; Font i Furnols M; Gort G; Moisan MP; Mormède P
    J Anim Sci; 2006 Jan; 84(1):204-11. PubMed ID: 16361508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Genetic parameters for carcass composition and pork quality estimated in a commercial production chain.
    van Wijk HJ; Arts DJ; Matthews JO; Webster M; Ducro BJ; Knol EF
    J Anim Sci; 2005 Feb; 83(2):324-33. PubMed ID: 15644503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Effects of Duroc, Meishan, Fengjing, and Minzhu boars on carcass traits of first-cross barrows.
    Young LD
    J Anim Sci; 1992 Jul; 70(7):2030-7. PubMed ID: 1644675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Effects of cooked temperature on pork tenderness and relationships among muscle physiology and pork quality traits in loins from Landrace and Berkshire swine.
    Crawford SM; Moeller SJ; Zerby HN; Irvin KM; Kuber PS; Velleman SG; Leeds TD
    Meat Sci; 2010 Apr; 84(4):607-12. PubMed ID: 20374831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Genetic and phenotypic relationships between individual subcutaneous backfat layers and percentage of longissimus intramuscular fat in Duroc swine.
    Newcom DW; Baas TJ; Schwab CR; Stalder KJ
    J Anim Sci; 2005 Feb; 83(2):316-23. PubMed ID: 15644502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Genetic parameter estimation for inosine-5-monophosphate and intramuscular fat contents and other meat quality traits in chicken muscle].
    Chen JL; Wen J; Zhao GP; Zheng MQ; Yang N
    Yi Chuan; 2005 Nov; 27(6):898-902. PubMed ID: 16378936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Effects of breeds, tissues and genders on purine contents in pork and the relationships between purine content and other meat quality traits.
    Zheng M; Huang Y; Ji J; Xiao S; Ma J; Huang L
    Meat Sci; 2018 Sep; 143():81-86. PubMed ID: 29715664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Compensatory growth response in pigs: effects on growth performance, composition of weight gain at carcass and muscle levels, and meat quality.
    Heyer A; Lebret B
    J Anim Sci; 2007 Mar; 85(3):769-78. PubMed ID: 17296780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The rearing system modulates biochemical and histological differences in loin and ham muscles between Basque and Large White pigs.
    Lefaucheur L; Lebret B
    Animal; 2020 Sep; 14(9):1976-1986. PubMed ID: 32248866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Back-fat thickness as a primary index reflecting the yield and overall acceptance of pork meat.
    Hoa VB; Seo HW; Seong PN; Cho SH; Kang SM; Kim YS; Moon SS; Choi YM; Kim JH; Seol KH
    Anim Sci J; 2021; 92(1):e13515. PubMed ID: 33522042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The relationship between the chemical composition of the carcass and the fatty acid composition of intramuscular fat and backfat of several pig breeds slaughtered at different weights.
    Raj S; Skiba G; Weremko D; Fandrejewski H; Migdał W; Borowiec F; Poławska E
    Meat Sci; 2010 Oct; 86(2):324-30. PubMed ID: 20665991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Intramuscular fat in lamb muscle and the impact of selection for improved carcass lean meat yield.
    Anderson F; Pannier L; Pethick DW; Gardner GE
    Animal; 2015 Jun; 9(6):1081-90. PubMed ID: 25510326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.