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 *

234 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32995954)

  • 1. Marker genotyping error effects on genomic predictions under different genetic architectures.
    Akbarpour T; Ghavi Hossein-Zadeh N; Shadparvar AA
    Mol Genet Genomics; 2021 Jan; 296(1):79-89. PubMed ID: 32995954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Potential of genotyping-by-sequencing for genomic selection in livestock populations.
    Gorjanc G; Cleveland MA; Houston RD; Hickey JM
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Mar; 47(1):12. PubMed ID: 25887531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Genomic predictions under different genetic architectures are impacted by mating designs.
    Ansari S; Ghavi Hossein-Zadeh N; Shadparvar AA
    Vet Anim Sci; 2024 Sep; 25():100373. PubMed ID: 39036417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The impact of clustering methods for cross-validation, choice of phenotypes, and genotyping strategies on the accuracy of genomic predictions.
    Baller JL; Howard JT; Kachman SD; Spangler ML
    J Anim Sci; 2019 Apr; 97(4):1534-1549. PubMed ID: 30721970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Performance of pedigree and various forms of marker-derived relationship coefficients in genomic prediction and their correlations.
    Solaymani S; Ayatollahi Mehrgardi A; Esmailizadeh A; Tusell L; Momen M
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2020 Sep; 137(5):423-437. PubMed ID: 32003127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Genomic predictions in purebreds with a multibreed genomic relationship matrix1.
    Steyn Y; Lourenco DAL; Misztal I
    J Anim Sci; 2019 Nov; 97(11):4418-4427. PubMed ID: 31539424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The importance of information on relatives for the prediction of genomic breeding values and the implications for the makeup of reference data sets in livestock breeding schemes.
    Clark SA; Hickey JM; Daetwyler HD; van der Werf JH
    Genet Sel Evol; 2012 Feb; 44(1):4. PubMed ID: 22321529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. QTL detection with bidirectional and unidirectional selective genotyping: marker-based and trait-based analyses.
    Navabi A; Mather DE; Bernier J; Spaner DM; Atlin GN
    Theor Appl Genet; 2009 Jan; 118(2):347-58. PubMed ID: 18854970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Empirical and deterministic accuracies of across-population genomic prediction.
    Wientjes YC; Veerkamp RF; Bijma P; Bovenhuis H; Schrooten C; Calus MP
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Feb; 47(1):5. PubMed ID: 25885467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Combining cow and bull reference populations to increase accuracy of genomic prediction and genome-wide association studies.
    Calus MP; de Haas Y; Veerkamp RF
    J Dairy Sci; 2013 Oct; 96(10):6703-15. PubMed ID: 23891299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Using selection index theory to estimate consistency of multi-locus linkage disequilibrium across populations.
    Wientjes YC; Veerkamp RF; Calus MP
    BMC Genet; 2015 Jul; 16():87. PubMed ID: 26187501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A first step toward genomic selection in the multi-breed French dairy goat population.
    Carillier C; Larroque H; Palhière I; Clément V; Rupp R; Robert-Granié C
    J Dairy Sci; 2013; 96(11):7294-7305. PubMed ID: 24054303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Accuracy of prediction of simulated polygenic phenotypes and their underlying quantitative trait loci genotypes using real or imputed whole-genome markers in cattle.
    Hassani S; Saatchi M; Fernando RL; Garrick DJ
    Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Dec; 47():99. PubMed ID: 26698091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Accuracy of genomic selection in simulated populations mimicking the extent of linkage disequilibrium in beef cattle.
    Brito FV; Neto JB; Sargolzaei M; Cobuci JA; Schenkel FS
    BMC Genet; 2011 Sep; 12():80. PubMed ID: 21933416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effects of marker density and population structure on the genomic prediction accuracy for growth trait in Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei.
    Wang Q; Yu Y; Yuan J; Zhang X; Huang H; Li F; Xiang J
    BMC Genet; 2017 May; 18(1):45. PubMed ID: 28514941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.