176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34620083)
1. Single-step genomic evaluation with metafounders for feed conversion ratio and average daily gain in Danish Landrace and Yorkshire pigs.
Fu C; Ostersen T; Christensen OF; Xiang T
Genet Sel Evol; 2021 Oct; 53(1):79. PubMed ID: 34620083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Genomic evaluation for two-way crossbred performance in cattle.
Mei Q; Liu H; Zhao S; Xiang T; Christensen OF
Genet Sel Evol; 2023 Mar; 55(1):17. PubMed ID: 36932324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Empirical comparison between different methods for genomic prediction of number of piglets born alive in moderate sized breeding populations.
Fangmann A; Sharifi RA; Heinkel J; Danowski K; Schrade H; Erbe M; Simianer H
J Anim Sci; 2017 Apr; 95(4):1434-1443. PubMed ID: 28464085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Bias and accuracy of dairy sheep evaluations using BLUP and SSGBLUP with metafounders and unknown parent groups.
Macedo FL; Christensen OF; Astruc JM; Aguilar I; Masuda Y; Legarra A
Genet Sel Evol; 2020 Aug; 52(1):47. PubMed ID: 32787772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Technical note: Genomic evaluation for crossbred performance in a single-step approach with metafounders.
Xiang T; Christensen OF; Legarra A
J Anim Sci; 2017 Apr; 95(4):1472-1480. PubMed ID: 28464109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Detecting effective starting point of genomic selection by divergent trends from best linear unbiased prediction and single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction in pigs, beef cattle, and broilers.
Abdollahi-Arpanahi R; Lourenco D; Misztal I
J Anim Sci; 2021 Sep; 99(9):. PubMed ID: 34390341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Metafounders May Reduce Bias in Composite Cattle Genomic Predictions.
Kluska S; Masuda Y; Ferraz JBS; Tsuruta S; Eler JP; Baldi F; Lourenco D
Front Genet; 2021; 12():678587. PubMed ID: 34490031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Invited review: Unknown-parent groups and metafounders in single-step genomic BLUP.
Masuda Y; VanRaden PM; Tsuruta S; Lourenco DAL; Misztal I
J Dairy Sci; 2022 Feb; 105(2):923-939. PubMed ID: 34799109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Impact of genomic preselection on subsequent ssGBLUP evaluation of preselected animals for scarcely recorded feed intake in pigs.
Jibrila I; Ten Napel J; Vandenplas J; Bergsma R; Veerkamp RF; Calus MPL
J Anim Breed Genet; 2023 May; 140(3):253-263. PubMed ID: 36637041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Metafounder approach for single-step genomic evaluations of Red Dairy cattle.
Kudinov AA; Mäntysaari EA; Aamand GP; Uimari P; Strandén I
J Dairy Sci; 2020 Jul; 103(7):6299-6310. PubMed ID: 32418688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Efficient large-scale single-step evaluations and indirect genomic prediction of genotyped selection candidates.
Vandenplas J; Ten Napel J; Darbaghshahi SN; Evans R; Calus MPL; Veerkamp R; Cromie A; Mäntysaari EA; Strandén I
Genet Sel Evol; 2023 Jun; 55(1):37. PubMed ID: 37291510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Genomic Prediction of Average Daily Gain, Back-Fat Thickness, and Loin Muscle Depth Using Different Genomic Tools in Canadian Swine Populations.
Salek Ardestani S; Jafarikia M; Sargolzaei M; Sullivan B; Miar Y
Front Genet; 2021; 12():665344. PubMed ID: 34149806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessment of the genomic prediction accuracy for feed efficiency traits in meat-type chickens.
Liu T; Luo C; Wang J; Ma J; Shu D; Lund MS; Su G; Qu H
PLoS One; 2017; 12(3):e0173620. PubMed ID: 28278209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Differing genetic trend estimates from traditional and genomic evaluations of genotyped animals as evidence of preselection bias in US Holsteins.
Masuda Y; VanRaden PM; Misztal I; Lawlor TJ
J Dairy Sci; 2018 Jun; 101(6):5194-5206. PubMed ID: 29573806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Applying the Metafounders Approach for Genomic Evaluation in a Multibreed Beef Cattle Population.
Junqueira VS; Lopes PS; Lourenco D; Silva FFE; Cardoso FF
Front Genet; 2020; 11():556399. PubMed ID: 33424914
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Genomic prediction for crossbred performance using metafounders.
van Grevenhof EM; Vandenplas J; Calus MPL
J Anim Sci; 2019 Feb; 97(2):548-558. PubMed ID: 30423111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of iterated single-step and Bayesian regressions on genomic evaluations for age at 100 kg in swine.
Freitas MS; Freitas LS; Weber T; Yamaki M; Cantão ME; Peixoto JO; Ledur MC
J Anim Sci; 2015 Oct; 93(10):4675-83. PubMed ID: 26523560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Modeling missing pedigree with metafounders and validating single-step genomic predictions in a small dairy cattle population with a great influence of foreign genetics.
López-Correa RD; Legarra A; Aguilar I
J Dairy Sci; 2024 Jul; 107(7):4685-4692. PubMed ID: 38310956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Efficient approximation of reliabilities for single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor models with the Algorithm for Proven and Young.
Bermann M; Lourenco D; Misztal I
J Anim Sci; 2022 Jan; 100(1):. PubMed ID: 34877603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of genomic preselection on subsequent genetic evaluations with ssGBLUP using real data from pigs.
Jibrila I; Vandenplas J; Ten Napel J; Bergsma R; Veerkamp RF; Calus MPL
Genet Sel Evol; 2022 Jun; 54(1):48. PubMed ID: 35764921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
