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 *

264 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30726939)

  • 1. Crossbred evaluations using single-step genomic BLUP and algorithm for proven and young with different sources of data1.
    Pocrnic I; Lourenco DAL; Chen CY; Herring WO; Misztal I
    J Anim Sci; 2019 Apr; 97(4):1513-1522. PubMed ID: 30726939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Leveraging low-density crossbred genotypes to offset crossbred phenotypes and their impact on purebred predictions.
    Leite NG; Chen CY; Herring WO; Holl J; Tsuruta S; Lourenco D
    J Anim Sci; 2022 Dec; 100(12):. PubMed ID: 36309902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Genetic evaluation using single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in American Angus.
    Lourenco DA; Tsuruta S; Fragomeni BO; Masuda Y; Aguilar I; Legarra A; Bertrand JK; Amen TS; Wang L; Moser DW; Misztal I
    J Anim Sci; 2015 Jun; 93(6):2653-62. PubMed ID: 26115253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The quality of the algorithm for proven and young with various sets of core animals in a multibreed sheep population1.
    Nilforooshan MA; Lee M
    J Anim Sci; 2019 Mar; 97(3):1090-1100. PubMed ID: 30624671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Accuracy of genome-enabled prediction exploring purebred and crossbred pig populations.
    Veroneze R; Lopes MS; Hidalgo AM; Guimarães SE; Silva FF; Harlizius B; Lopes PS; Knol EF; M van Arendonk JA; Bastiaansen JW
    J Anim Sci; 2015 Oct; 93(10):4684-91. PubMed ID: 26523561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Multibreed genomic evaluation for production traits of dairy cattle in the United States using single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor.
    Cesarani A; Lourenco D; Tsuruta S; Legarra A; Nicolazzi EL; VanRaden PM; Misztal I
    J Dairy Sci; 2022 Jun; 105(6):5141-5152. PubMed ID: 35282922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Is single-step genomic REML with the algorithm for proven and young more computationally efficient when less generations of data are present?
    Junqueira VS; Lourenco D; Masuda Y; Cardoso FF; Lopes PS; Silva FFE; Misztal I
    J Anim Sci; 2022 May; 100(5):. PubMed ID: 35289906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Crossbreed evaluations in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor using adjusted realized relationship matrices.
    Lourenco DA; Tsuruta S; Fragomeni BO; Chen CY; Herring WO; Misztal I
    J Anim Sci; 2016 Mar; 94(3):909-19. PubMed ID: 27065253
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sparse single-step genomic BLUP in crossbreeding schemes.
    Vandenplas J; Calus MPL; Ten Napel J
    J Anim Sci; 2018 Jun; 96(6):2060-2073. PubMed ID: 29873759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Hot topic: Use of genomic recursions in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) with a large number of genotypes.
    Fragomeni BO; Lourenco DA; Tsuruta S; Masuda Y; Aguilar I; Legarra A; Lawlor TJ; Misztal I
    J Dairy Sci; 2015 Jun; 98(6):4090-4. PubMed ID: 25864050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Application of single-step genomic evaluation for crossbred performance in pig.
    Xiang T; Nielsen B; Su G; Legarra A; Christensen OF
    J Anim Sci; 2016 Mar; 94(3):936-48. PubMed ID: 27065256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Short communication: Genomic prediction using different single-step methods in the Finnish red dairy cattle population.
    Gao H; Koivula M; Jensen J; Strandén I; Madsen P; Pitkänen T; Aamand GP; Mäntysaari EA
    J Dairy Sci; 2018 Nov; 101(11):10082-10088. PubMed ID: 30146284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Differing genetic trend estimates from traditional and genomic evaluations of genotyped animals as evidence of preselection bias in US Holsteins.
    Masuda Y; VanRaden PM; Misztal I; Lawlor TJ
    J Dairy Sci; 2018 Jun; 101(6):5194-5206. PubMed ID: 29573806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Current status of genomic evaluation.
    Misztal I; Lourenco D; Legarra A
    J Anim Sci; 2020 Apr; 98(4):. PubMed ID: 32267923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.