107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33871030)
1. On the use of GBLUP and its extension for GWAS with additive and epistatic effects.
Zhang J; Liu F; Reif JC; Jiang Y
G3 (Bethesda); 2021 Jul; 11(7):. PubMed ID: 33871030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. An efficient unified model for genome-wide association studies and genomic selection.
Li H; Su G; Jiang L; Bao Z
Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Aug; 49(1):64. PubMed ID: 28836943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A rapid epistatic mixed-model association analysis by linear retransformations of genomic estimated values.
Ning C; Wang D; Kang H; Mrode R; Zhou L; Xu S; Liu JF
Bioinformatics; 2018 Jun; 34(11):1817-1825. PubMed ID: 29342229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Performances of Adaptive MultiBLUP, Bayesian regressions, and weighted-GBLUP approaches for genomic predictions in Belgian Blue beef cattle.
Gualdrón Duarte JL; Gori AS; Hubin X; Lourenco D; Charlier C; Misztal I; Druet T
BMC Genomics; 2020 Aug; 21(1):545. PubMed ID: 32762654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Efficient weighting methods for genomic best linear-unbiased prediction (BLUP) adapted to the genetic architectures of quantitative traits.
Ren D; An L; Li B; Qiao L; Liu W
Heredity (Edinb); 2021 Feb; 126(2):320-334. PubMed ID: 32980863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Use of whole-genome sequence data and novel genomic selection strategies to improve selection for age at puberty in tropically-adapted beef heifers.
Warburton CL; Engle BN; Ross EM; Costilla R; Moore SS; Corbet NJ; Allen JM; Laing AR; Fordyce G; Lyons RE; McGowan MR; Burns BM; Hayes BJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2020 May; 52(1):28. PubMed ID: 32460805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative analysis of the GBLUP, emBayesB, and GWAS algorithms to predict genetic values in large yellow croaker (Larimichthys crocea).
Dong L; Xiao S; Wang Q; Wang Z
BMC Genomics; 2016 Jun; 17():460. PubMed ID: 27301965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Genomic studies with preselected markers reveal dominance effects influencing growth traits in Eucalyptus nitens.
Thumma BR; Joyce KR; Jacobs A
G3 (Bethesda); 2022 Jan; 12(1):. PubMed ID: 34791210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessment of bagging GBLUP for whole-genome prediction of broiler chicken traits.
Abdollahi-Arpanahi R; Morota G; Valente BD; Kranis A; Rosa GJ; Gianola D
J Anim Breed Genet; 2015 Jun; 132(3):218-28. PubMed ID: 25727456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Genome-wide prediction for complex traits under the presence of dominance effects in simulated populations using GBLUP and machine learning methods.
Alves AAC; da Costa RM; Bresolin T; Fernandes Júnior GA; Espigolan R; Ribeiro AMF; Carvalheiro R; de Albuquerque LG
J Anim Sci; 2020 Jun; 98(6):. PubMed ID: 32474602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Use of a Bayesian model including QTL markers increases prediction reliability when test animals are distant from the reference population.
Ma P; Lund MS; Aamand GP; Su G
J Dairy Sci; 2019 Aug; 102(8):7237-7247. PubMed ID: 31155255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Use of gene expression and whole-genome sequence information to improve the accuracy of genomic prediction for carcass traits in Hanwoo cattle.
de Las Heras-Saldana S; Lopez BI; Moghaddar N; Park W; Park JE; Chung KY; Lim D; Lee SH; Shin D; van der Werf JHJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2020 Sep; 52(1):54. PubMed ID: 32993481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Genome-wide association study and prediction of genomic breeding values for fatty-acid composition in Korean Hanwoo cattle using a high-density single-nucleotide polymorphism array.
Bhuiyan MSA; Kim YK; Kim HJ; Lee DH; Lee SH; Yoon HB; Lee SH
J Anim Sci; 2018 Sep; 96(10):4063-4075. PubMed ID: 30265318
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Genomic Model with Correlation Between Additive and Dominance Effects.
Xiang T; Christensen OF; Vitezica ZG; Legarra A
Genetics; 2018 Jul; 209(3):711-723. PubMed ID: 29743175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Genome-Enabled Estimates of Additive and Nonadditive Genetic Variances and Prediction of Apple Phenotypes Across Environments.
Kumar S; Molloy C; Muñoz P; Daetwyler H; Chagné D; Volz R
G3 (Bethesda); 2015 Oct; 5(12):2711-8. PubMed ID: 26497141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Smooth-Threshold Multivariate Genetic Prediction with Unbiased Model Selection.
Ueki M; Tamiya G;
Genet Epidemiol; 2016 Apr; 40(3):233-43. PubMed ID: 26947266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
