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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32039696)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Geno-Diver: A combined coalescence and forward-in-time simulator for populations undergoing selection for complex traits.
    Howard JT; Tiezzi F; Pryce JE; Maltecca C
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2017 Dec; 134(6):553-563. PubMed ID: 28464287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Genomic predictions can accelerate selection for resistance against Piscirickettsia salmonis in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).
    Bangera R; Correa K; Lhorente JP; Figueroa R; Yáñez JM
    BMC Genomics; 2017 Jan; 18(1):121. PubMed ID: 28143402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A combined coalescence gene-dropping tool for evaluating genomic selection in complex scenarios (ms2gs).
    Pérez-Enciso M; Legarra A
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2016 Apr; 133(2):85-91. PubMed ID: 26995218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Genomic dissection and prediction of feed intake and residual feed intake traits using a longitudinal model in F2 chickens.
    Emamgholi Begli H; Vaez Torshizi R; Masoudi AA; Ehsani A; Jensen J
    Animal; 2018 Sep; 12(9):1792-1798. PubMed ID: 29268803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Technical note: Equivalent genomic models with a residual polygenic effect.
    Liu Z; Goddard ME; Hayes BJ; Reinhardt F; Reents R
    J Dairy Sci; 2016 Mar; 99(3):2016-2025. PubMed ID: 26723117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. An efficient exact method to obtain GBLUP and single-step GBLUP when the genomic relationship matrix is singular.
    Fernando RL; Cheng H; Garrick DJ
    Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Oct; 48(1):80. PubMed ID: 27788669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. GAPIT Version 3: Boosting Power and Accuracy for Genomic Association and Prediction.
    Wang J; Zhang Z
    Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics; 2021 Aug; 19(4):629-640. PubMed ID: 34492338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Accuracy of predicting genomic breeding values for residual feed intake in Angus and Charolais beef cattle.
    Chen L; Schenkel F; Vinsky M; Crews DH; Li C
    J Anim Sci; 2013 Oct; 91(10):4669-78. PubMed ID: 24078618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Experiences with a single-step genome evaluation.
    Misztal I; Aggrey SE; Muir WM
    Poult Sci; 2013 Sep; 92(9):2530-4. PubMed ID: 23960138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Optimized grouping to increase accuracy of prediction of breeding values based on group records in genomic selection breeding programs.
    Chu TT; Bastiaansen JWM; Berg P; Komen H
    Genet Sel Evol; 2019 Nov; 51(1):64. PubMed ID: 31730478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Evaluating Sequence-Based Genomic Prediction with an Efficient New Simulator.
    Pérez-Enciso M; Forneris N; de Los Campos G; Legarra A
    Genetics; 2017 Feb; 205(2):939-953. PubMed ID: 27913617
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Accounting for trait architecture in genomic predictions of US Holstein cattle using a weighted realized relationship matrix.
    Tiezzi F; Maltecca C
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Apr; 47(1):24. PubMed ID: 25886167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Genomic predictions for economically important traits in Brazilian Braford and Hereford beef cattle using true and imputed genotypes.
    Piccoli ML; Brito LF; Braccini J; Cardoso FF; Sargolzaei M; Schenkel FS
    BMC Genet; 2017 Jan; 18(1):2. PubMed ID: 28100165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Genomic prediction based on selected variants from imputed whole-genome sequence data in Australian sheep populations.
    Moghaddar N; Khansefid M; van der Werf JHJ; Bolormaa S; Duijvesteijn N; Clark SA; Swan AA; Daetwyler HD; MacLeod IM
    Genet Sel Evol; 2019 Dec; 51(1):72. PubMed ID: 31805849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Genomic Prediction Accuracy for Resistance Against
    Yoshida GM; Bangera R; Carvalheiro R; Correa K; Figueroa R; Lhorente JP; Yáñez JM
    G3 (Bethesda); 2018 Feb; 8(2):719-726. PubMed ID: 29255117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.