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.
189 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31830899)
21. 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]
22. Variable selection models for genomic selection using whole-genome sequence data and singular value decomposition. Meuwissen THE; Indahl UG; Ødegård J Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Dec; 49(1):94. PubMed ID: 29281962 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Short Communication: Reduced GBLUP equations to core animals in the algorithm for proven and young (APY). Nilforooshan MA Vet Anim Sci; 2024 Mar; 23():100334. PubMed ID: 38283332 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Comparison of genomic predictions using genomic relationship matrices built with different weighting factors to account for locus-specific variances. Su G; Christensen OF; Janss L; Lund MS J Dairy Sci; 2014 Oct; 97(10):6547-59. PubMed ID: 25129495 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. ICGRM: integrative construction of genomic relationship matrix combining multiple genomic regions for big dataset. Jiang D; Xin C; Ye J; Yuan Y; Fang M BMC Bioinformatics; 2019 Dec; 20(1):731. PubMed ID: 31878869 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Alternative SNP weighting for single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor evaluation of stature in US Holsteins in the presence of selected sequence variants. Fragomeni BO; Lourenco DAL; Legarra A; VanRaden PM; Misztal I J Dairy Sci; 2019 Nov; 102(11):10012-10019. PubMed ID: 31495612 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Use of genomic recursions and algorithm for proven and young animals for single-step genomic BLUP analyses--a simulation study. Fragomeni BO; Lourenco DA; Tsuruta S; Masuda Y; Aguilar I; Misztal I J Anim Breed Genet; 2015 Oct; 132(5):340-5. PubMed ID: 25857518 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Predicting the effect of reference population on the accuracy of within, across, and multibreed genomic prediction. van den Berg I; Meuwissen THE; MacLeod IM; Goddard ME J Dairy Sci; 2019 Apr; 102(4):3155-3174. PubMed ID: 30738664 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Application of single step genomic BLUP under different uncertain paternity scenarios using simulated data. Tonussi RL; Silva RMO; Magalhães AFB; Espigolan R; Peripolli E; Olivieri BF; Feitosa FLB; Lemos MVA; Berton MP; Chiaia HLJ; Pereira ASC; Lôbo RB; Bezerra LAF; Magnabosco CU; Lourenço DAL; Aguilar I; Baldi F PLoS One; 2017; 12(9):e0181752. PubMed ID: 28957330 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Whole-genome sequence-based genomic prediction in laying chickens with different genomic relationship matrices to account for genetic architecture. Ni G; Cavero D; Fangmann A; Erbe M; Simianer H Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Jan; 49(1):8. PubMed ID: 28093063 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Comparing genomic prediction accuracy from purebred, crossbred and combined purebred and crossbred reference populations in sheep. Moghaddar N; Swan AA; van der Werf JH Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Sep; 46(1):58. PubMed ID: 25927315 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Improving accuracy of genomic predictions within and between dairy cattle breeds with imputed high-density single nucleotide polymorphism panels. Erbe M; Hayes BJ; Matukumalli LK; Goswami S; Bowman PJ; Reich CM; Mason BA; Goddard ME J Dairy Sci; 2012 Jul; 95(7):4114-29. PubMed ID: 22720968 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. 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]
37. Selection of core animals in the Algorithm for Proven and Young using a simulation model. Bradford HL; Pocrnić I; Fragomeni BO; Lourenco DAL; Misztal I J Anim Breed Genet; 2017 Dec; 134(6):545-552. PubMed ID: 28464315 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The Usage of an SNP-SNP Relationship Matrix for Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) Analysis Using a Community-Based Cohort Study. Lee YS; Kim HJ; Cho S; Kim H Genomics Inform; 2014 Dec; 12(4):254-60. PubMed ID: 25705167 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Accuracy of Genomic Prediction in Synthetic Populations Depending on the Number of Parents, Relatedness, and Ancestral Linkage Disequilibrium. Schopp P; Müller D; Technow F; Melchinger AE Genetics; 2017 Jan; 205(1):441-454. PubMed ID: 28049710 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]