245 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30870528)
1. Opportunities for genomic selection in American mink: A simulation study.
Karimi K; Sargolzaei M; Plastow GS; Wang Z; Miar Y
PLoS One; 2019; 14(3):e0213873. PubMed ID: 30870528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Genomic selection in American mink (Neovison vison) using a single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction model for size and quality traits graded on live mink.
Villumsen TM; Su G; Guldbrandtsen B; Asp T; Lund MS
J Anim Sci; 2021 Jan; 99(1):. PubMed ID: 33515480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessment of genomic prediction accuracy using different selection and evaluation approaches in a simulated Korean beef cattle population.
Nwogwugwu CP; Kim Y; Choi H; Lee JH; Lee SH
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci; 2020 Dec; 33(12):1912-1921. PubMed ID: 32819072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Development of genomic predictions for Angus cattle in Brazil incorporating genotypes from related American sires.
Campos GS; Cardoso FF; Gomes CCG; Domingues R; de Almeida Regitano LC; de Sena Oliveira MC; de Oliveira HN; Carvalheiro R; Albuquerque LG; Miller S; Misztal I; Lourenco D
J Anim Sci; 2022 Feb; 100(2):. PubMed ID: 35031806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Single-step genomic evaluation for growth traits in a Mexican Braunvieh cattle population.
Valerio-Hernández JE; Ruíz-Flores A; Nilforooshan MA; Pérez-Rodríguez P
Anim Biosci; 2023 Jul; 36(7):1003-1009. PubMed ID: 36915917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Using Different Single-Step Strategies to Improve the Efficiency of Genomic Prediction on Body Measurement Traits in Pig.
Song H; Zhang J; Zhang Q; Ding X
Front Genet; 2018; 9():730. PubMed ID: 30693018
[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. 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]
10. Comparison of genomic predictions for lowly heritable traits using multi-step and single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in Holstein cattle.
Guarini AR; Lourenco DAL; Brito LF; Sargolzaei M; Baes CF; Miglior F; Misztal I; Schenkel FS
J Dairy Sci; 2018 Sep; 101(9):8076-8086. PubMed ID: 29935829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparison of genetic and genomic breeding values in Saanen and Alpine goats.
Negro A; Cesarani A; Cortellari M; Bionda A; Fresi P; Macciotta NPP; Grande S; Biffani S; Crepaldi P
Animal; 2024 Apr; 18(4):101118. PubMed ID: 38508133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Effect of selection and selective genotyping for creation of reference on bias and accuracy of genomic prediction.
Gowane GR; Lee SH; Clark S; Moghaddar N; Al-Mamun HA; van der Werf JHJ
J Anim Breed Genet; 2019 Sep; 136(5):390-407. PubMed ID: 31215699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Validation of single-step GBLUP genomic predictions from threshold models using the linear regression method: An application in chicken mortality.
Bermann M; Legarra A; Hollifield MK; Masuda Y; Lourenco D; Misztal I
J Anim Breed Genet; 2021 Jan; 138(1):4-13. PubMed ID: 32985749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Bias and accuracy of dairy sheep evaluations using BLUP and SSGBLUP with metafounders and unknown parent groups.
Macedo FL; Christensen OF; Astruc JM; Aguilar I; Masuda Y; Legarra A
Genet Sel Evol; 2020 Aug; 52(1):47. PubMed ID: 32787772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Random forest estimation of genomic breeding values for disease susceptibility over different disease incidences and genomic architectures in simulated cow calibration groups.
Naderi S; Yin T; König S
J Dairy Sci; 2016 Sep; 99(9):7261-7273. PubMed ID: 27344385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Accuracy of genomic selection for a sib-evaluated trait using identity-by-state and identity-by-descent relationships.
Vela-Avitúa S; Meuwissen TH; Luan T; Ødegård J
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Feb; 47(1):9. PubMed ID: 25888184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Genomic selection models double the accuracy of predicted breeding values for bacterial cold water disease resistance compared to a traditional pedigree-based model in rainbow trout aquaculture.
Vallejo RL; Leeds TD; Gao G; Parsons JE; Martin KE; Evenhuis JP; Fragomeni BO; Wiens GD; Palti Y
Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Feb; 49(1):17. PubMed ID: 28148220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
