400 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32497209)
1. Genomic prediction using pooled data in a single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction framework.
Baller JL; Kachman SD; Kuehn LA; Spangler ML
J Anim Sci; 2020 Jun; 98(6):. PubMed ID: 32497209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Using pooled data for genomic prediction in a bivariate framework with missing data.
Baller JL; Kachman SD; Kuehn LA; Spangler ML
J Anim Breed Genet; 2022 Sep; 139(5):489-501. PubMed ID: 35698863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Genomic prediction ability for beef fatty acid profile in Nelore cattle using different pseudo-phenotypes.
Chiaia HLJ; Peripolli E; de Oliveira Silva RM; Feitosa FLB; de Lemos MVA; Berton MP; Olivieri BF; Espigolan R; Tonussi RL; Gordo DGM; de Albuquerque LG; de Oliveira HN; Ferrinho AM; Mueller LF; Kluska S; Tonhati H; Pereira ASC; Aguilar I; Baldi F
J Appl Genet; 2018 Nov; 59(4):493-501. PubMed ID: 30251238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Pooled genotyping strategies for the rapid construction of genomic reference populations1.
Alexandre PA; Porto-Neto LR; Karaman E; Lehnert SA; Reverter A
J Anim Sci; 2019 Dec; 97(12):4761-4769. PubMed ID: 31710679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The impact of reducing the frequency of animals genotyped at higher density on imputation and prediction accuracies using ssGBLUP1.
Sollero BP; Howard JT; Spangler ML
J Anim Sci; 2019 Jul; 97(7):2780-2792. PubMed ID: 31115442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. In silico validation of pooled genotyping strategies for genomic evaluation in Angus cattle.
Alexandre PA; Reverter A; Lehnert SA; Porto-Neto LR; Dominik S
J Anim Sci; 2020 Jun; 98(6):. PubMed ID: 32428206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. The impact of selective genotyping on the response to selection using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction.
Howard JT; Rathje TA; Bruns CE; Wilson-Wells DF; Kachman SD; Spangler ML
J Anim Sci; 2018 Nov; 96(11):4532-4542. PubMed ID: 30107560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. International single-step SNPBLUP beef cattle evaluations for Limousin weaning weight.
Bonifazi R; Calus MPL; Ten Napel J; Veerkamp RF; Michenet A; Savoia S; Cromie A; Vandenplas J
Genet Sel Evol; 2022 Sep; 54(1):57. PubMed ID: 36057564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Strategies for accommodating gene-edited sires and their descendants in genetic evaluations.
Sanglard LP; See GM; Spangler ML
J Anim Sci; 2023 Jan; 101():. PubMed ID: 36897830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Use of overlapping DNA pools to discern genetic differences despite pooling error.
Keele JW; McDaneld TG; Kuehn LA
J Anim Sci; 2023 Jan; 101():. PubMed ID: 37227930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effects of number of training generations on genomic prediction for various traits in a layer chicken population.
Weng Z; Wolc A; Shen X; Fernando RL; Dekkers JC; Arango J; Settar P; Fulton JE; O'Sullivan NP; Garrick DJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Mar; 48():22. PubMed ID: 26992471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Improving accuracy of direct and maternal genetic effects in genomic evaluations using pooled boar semen: a simulation study1.
Maiorano AM; Assen A; Bijma P; Chen CY; Silva JAIV; Herring WO; Tsuruta S; Misztal I; Lourenco DAL
J Anim Sci; 2019 Jul; 97(8):3237-3245. PubMed ID: 31240314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A mating advice system in dairy cattle incorporating genomic information.
Carthy TR; McCarthy J; Berry DP
J Dairy Sci; 2019 Sep; 102(9):8210-8220. PubMed ID: 31229287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Imputation of non-genotyped F1 dams to improve genetic gain in swine crossbreeding programs.
See GM; Fix JS; Schwab CR; Spangler ML
J Anim Sci; 2022 May; 100(5):. PubMed ID: 35451025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Prediction accuracy of direct and indirect approaches, and their relationships with prediction ability of calibration models.
Belay TK; Dagnachew BS; Boison SA; Ådnøy T
J Dairy Sci; 2018 Jul; 101(7):6174-6189. PubMed ID: 29605329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Prediction accuracies and genetic parameters for test-day traits from genomic and pedigree-based random regression models with or without heat stress interactions.
Bohlouli M; Alijani S; Naderi S; Yin T; König S
J Dairy Sci; 2019 Jan; 102(1):488-502. PubMed ID: 30343923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Genomic prediction of reproduction traits for Merino sheep.
Bolormaa S; Brown DJ; Swan AA; van der Werf JHJ; Hayes BJ; Daetwyler HD
Anim Genet; 2017 Jun; 48(3):338-348. PubMed ID: 28211150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
