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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33934864)

  • 41. Mating structures for genomic selection breeding programs in aquaculture.
    Sonesson AK; Ødegård J
    Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Jun; 48(1):46. PubMed ID: 27342705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Genotype by environment interactions in fertility traits in New Zealand dairy cows.
    Craig HJB; Stachowicz K; Black M; Parry M; Burke CR; Meier S; Amer PR
    J Dairy Sci; 2018 Dec; 101(12):10991-11003. PubMed ID: 30243634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Heritabilities and genetic correlations in the same traits across different strata of herds created according to continuous genomic, genetic, and phenotypic descriptors.
    Yin T; König S
    J Dairy Sci; 2018 Mar; 101(3):2171-2186. PubMed ID: 29248231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Genomic selection for two traits in a maternal pig breeding scheme.
    Lillehammer M; Meuwissen TH; Sonesson AK
    J Anim Sci; 2013 Jul; 91(7):3079-87. PubMed ID: 23658351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Genotype by environment interaction for Holstein cattle populations using autoregressive and within- and across-country multi-trait reaction norms test-day models.
    Silva DA; Lopes PS; Costa CN; Silva AA; Silva HT; Silva FF; Veroneze R; Thompson G; Carvalheira J
    Animal; 2021 Feb; 15(2):100084. PubMed ID: 33712214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. Variance of gametic diversity and its application in selection programs.
    Santos DJA; Cole JB; Lawlor TJ; VanRaden PM; Tonhati H; Ma L
    J Dairy Sci; 2019 Jun; 102(6):5279-5294. PubMed ID: 30981488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Comparison of gene editing versus conventional breeding to introgress the POLLED allele into the US dairy cattle population.
    Mueller ML; Cole JB; Sonstegard TS; Van Eenennaam AL
    J Dairy Sci; 2019 May; 102(5):4215-4226. PubMed ID: 30852022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Accuracy of genomic prediction when combining two related crossbred populations.
    Vallée A; van Arendonk JA; Bovenhuis H
    J Anim Sci; 2014 Oct; 92(10):4342-8. PubMed ID: 25149337
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Deterministic models of breeding scheme designs that incorporate genomic selection.
    Pryce JE; Goddard ME; Raadsma HW; Hayes BJ
    J Dairy Sci; 2010 Nov; 93(11):5455-66. PubMed ID: 20965361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Genetic Gain and Inbreeding from Genomic Selection in a Simulated Commercial Breeding Program for Perennial Ryegrass.
    Lin Z; Cogan NO; Pembleton LW; Spangenberg GC; Forster JW; Hayes BJ; Daetwyler HD
    Plant Genome; 2016 Mar; 9(1):. PubMed ID: 27898764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Mating strategies with genomic information reduce rates of inbreeding in animal breeding schemes without compromising genetic gain.
    Liu H; Henryon M; Sørensen AC
    Animal; 2017 Apr; 11(4):547-555. PubMed ID: 27531662
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Controlling inbreeding and maximizing genetic gain using semi-definite programming with pedigree-based and genomic relationships.
    Schierenbeck S; Pimentel EC; Tietze M; Körte J; Reents R; Reinhardt F; Simianer H; König S
    J Dairy Sci; 2011 Dec; 94(12):6143-52. PubMed ID: 22118102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Multi-generational imputation of single nucleotide polymorphism marker genotypes and accuracy of genomic selection.
    Toghiani S; Aggrey SE; Rekaya R
    Animal; 2016 Jul; 10(7):1077-85. PubMed ID: 27076192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Assessing genetic gain, inbreeding, and bias attributable to different flock genetic means in alternative sheep sire referencing schemes.
    Kuehn LA; Notter DR; Lewis RM
    J Anim Sci; 2008 Mar; 86(3):526-35. PubMed ID: 18073281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Accounting for Genotype-by-Environment Interactions and Residual Genetic Variation in Genomic Selection for Water-Soluble Carbohydrate Concentration in Wheat.
    Ovenden B; Milgate A; Wade LJ; Rebetzke GJ; Holland JB
    G3 (Bethesda); 2018 May; 8(6):1909-1919. PubMed ID: 29661842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Including overseas performance information in genomic evaluations of Australian dairy cattle.
    Haile-Mariam M; Pryce JE; Schrooten C; Hayes BJ
    J Dairy Sci; 2015 May; 98(5):3443-59. PubMed ID: 25771052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Pedigree relationships to control inbreeding in optimum-contribution selection realise more genetic gain than genomic relationships.
    Henryon M; Liu H; Berg P; Su G; Nielsen HM; Gebregiwergis GT; Sørensen AC
    Genet Sel Evol; 2019 Jul; 51(1):39. PubMed ID: 31286868
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges.
    Hayes BJ; Bowman PJ; Chamberlain AJ; Goddard ME
    J Dairy Sci; 2009 Feb; 92(2):433-43. PubMed ID: 19164653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.