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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33736590)

  • 41. Persistency of accuracy of genomic breeding values for different simulated pig breeding programs in developing countries.
    Akanno EC; Schenkel FS; Sargolzaei M; Friendship RM; Robinson JA
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2014 Oct; 131(5):367-78. PubMed ID: 24628765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. ggroups: an R package for pedigree and genetic groups data.
    Nilforooshan MA; Saavedra-Jiménez LA
    Hereditas; 2020 May; 157(1):17. PubMed ID: 32366304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Selection in backcross programmes.
    Hospital F
    Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci; 2005 Jul; 360(1459):1503-11. PubMed ID: 16048792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Genotyping strategies for genomic selection in small dairy cattle populations.
    Jiménez-Montero JA; González-Recio O; Alenda R
    Animal; 2012 Aug; 6(8):1216-24. PubMed ID: 23217224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. The effect of using cow genomic information on accuracy and bias of genomic breeding values in a simulated Holstein dairy cattle population.
    Dehnavi E; Mahyari SA; Schenkel FS; Sargolzaei M
    J Dairy Sci; 2018 Jun; 101(6):5166-5176. PubMed ID: 29605309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Optimised parent selection and minimum inbreeding mating in small aquaculture breeding schemes: a simulation study.
    Hely FS; Amer PR; Walker SP; Symonds JE
    Animal; 2013 Jan; 7(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 23031385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Assessment of the genetic and economic impact of performance recording and genotyping in Australian commercial sheep operations.
    Santos BFS; Amer PR; Granleese T; Byrne TJ; Hogan L; Gibson JP; van der Werf JHJ
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2018 Jun; 135(3):221-237. PubMed ID: 29878494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Genomic selection using indicator traits to reduce the environmental impact of milk production.
    Axelsson HH; Fikse WF; Kargo M; Sørensen AC; Johansson K; Rydhmer L
    J Dairy Sci; 2013 Aug; 96(8):5306-14. PubMed ID: 23726422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Genome-Assisted Prediction of Quantitative Traits Using the R Package sommer.
    Covarrubias-Pazaran G
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0156744. PubMed ID: 27271781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Genomic selection: Status in different species and challenges for breeding.
    Stock KF; Reents R
    Reprod Domest Anim; 2013 Sep; 48 Suppl 1():2-10. PubMed ID: 23962210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Optimizing female allocation to reproductive technologies considering merit, inbreeding and cost in nucleus breeding programmes with genomic selection.
    Granleese T; Clark SA; Kinghorn BP; van der Werf JHJ
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2019 Mar; 136(2):79-90. PubMed ID: 30585664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Optimizing genomic reference populations to improve crossbred performance.
    Wientjes YCJ; Bijma P; Calus MPL
    Genet Sel Evol; 2020 Nov; 52(1):65. PubMed ID: 33158416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Controlling the Overfitting of Heritability in Genomic Selection through Cross Validation.
    Jia Z
    Sci Rep; 2017 Oct; 7(1):13678. PubMed ID: 29057969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Genetic parameters for carcass composition and pork quality estimated in a commercial production chain.
    van Wijk HJ; Arts DJ; Matthews JO; Webster M; Ducro BJ; Knol EF
    J Anim Sci; 2005 Feb; 83(2):324-33. PubMed ID: 15644503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Bio-economic and operational feasibility of introducing oestrus synchronization and artificial insemination in simulated smallholder sheep breeding programmes.
    Gizaw S; Tegegne A
    Animal; 2018 Jul; 12(7):1517-1526. PubMed ID: 29143721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Genomic selection in a pig population including information from slaughtered full sibs of boars within a sib-testing program.
    Samorè AB; Buttazzoni L; Gallo M; Russo V; Fontanesi L
    Animal; 2015 May; 9(5):750-9. PubMed ID: 25510405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. The potential of embryo transfer in a German horse-breeding programme.
    Sitzenstock F; Rathke I; Ytournel F; Simianer H
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2013 Jun; 130(3):199-208. PubMed ID: 23679945
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Genomic selection for maternal traits in pigs.
    Lillehammer M; Meuwissen TH; Sonesson AK
    J Anim Sci; 2011 Dec; 89(12):3908-16. PubMed ID: 21841086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Conventional breeding programmes and genetic resistance to animal diseases.
    Lindhé B; Philipsson J
    Rev Sci Tech; 1998 Apr; 17(1):291-301. PubMed ID: 9638818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Selection for sow longevity.
    Serenius T; Stalder KJ
    J Anim Sci; 2006 Apr; 84 Suppl():E166-71. PubMed ID: 16582089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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