133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35946919)
1. Implication of the order of blending and tuning when computing the genomic relationship matrix in single-step GBLUP.
McWhorter TM; Bermann M; Garcia ALS; Legarra A; Aguilar I; Misztal I; Lourenco D
J Anim Breed Genet; 2023 Jan; 140(1):60-78. PubMed ID: 35946919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Development of genomic predictions for Angus cattle in Brazil incorporating genotypes from related American sires.
Campos GS; Cardoso FF; Gomes CCG; Domingues R; de Almeida Regitano LC; de Sena Oliveira MC; de Oliveira HN; Carvalheiro R; Albuquerque LG; Miller S; Misztal I; Lourenco D
J Anim Sci; 2022 Feb; 100(2):. PubMed ID: 35031806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Indirect predictions with a large number of genotyped animals using the algorithm for proven and young.
Garcia ALS; Masuda Y; Tsuruta S; Miller S; Misztal I; Lourenco D
J Anim Sci; 2020 Jun; 98(6):. PubMed ID: 32374831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two single-step blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population.
Gao H; Christensen OF; Madsen P; Nielsen US; Zhang Y; Lund MS; Su G
Genet Sel Evol; 2012 Jul; 44(1):8. PubMed ID: 22455934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of genomic predictions for lowly heritable traits using multi-step and single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in Holstein cattle.
Guarini AR; Lourenco DAL; Brito LF; Sargolzaei M; Baes CF; Miglior F; Misztal I; Schenkel FS
J Dairy Sci; 2018 Sep; 101(9):8076-8086. PubMed ID: 29935829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Technical note: Automatic scaling in single-step genomic BLUP.
Bermann M; Lourenco D; Misztal I
J Dairy Sci; 2021 Feb; 104(2):2027-2031. PubMed ID: 33309381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Theoretical accuracy for indirect predictions based on SNP effects from single-step GBLUP.
Garcia A; Aguilar I; Legarra A; Tsuruta S; Misztal I; Lourenco D
Genet Sel Evol; 2022 Sep; 54(1):66. PubMed ID: 36162979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Crossbreed evaluations in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor using adjusted realized relationship matrices.
Lourenco DA; Tsuruta S; Fragomeni BO; Chen CY; Herring WO; Misztal I
J Anim Sci; 2016 Mar; 94(3):909-19. PubMed ID: 27065253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Genetic evaluation using single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in American Angus.
Lourenco DA; Tsuruta S; Fragomeni BO; Masuda Y; Aguilar I; Legarra A; Bertrand JK; Amen TS; Wang L; Moser DW; Misztal I
J Anim Sci; 2015 Jun; 93(6):2653-62. PubMed ID: 26115253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Alternative SNP weighting for single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor evaluation of stature in US Holsteins in the presence of selected sequence variants.
Fragomeni BO; Lourenco DAL; Legarra A; VanRaden PM; Misztal I
J Dairy Sci; 2019 Nov; 102(11):10012-10019. PubMed ID: 31495612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Domestic estimated breeding values and genomic enhanced breeding values of bulls in comparison with their foreign genomic enhanced breeding values.
Přibyl J; Bauer J; Čermák V; Pešek P; Přibylová J; Šplíchal J; Vostrá-Vydrová H; Vostrý L; Zavadilová L
Animal; 2015 Oct; 9(10):1635-42. PubMed ID: 26133272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Technical note: Equivalent genomic models with a residual polygenic effect.
Liu Z; Goddard ME; Hayes BJ; Reinhardt F; Reents R
J Dairy Sci; 2016 Mar; 99(3):2016-2025. PubMed ID: 26723117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Genomic predictions for yield traits in US Holsteins with unknown parent groups.
Cesarani A; Masuda Y; Tsuruta S; Nicolazzi EL; VanRaden PM; Lourenco D; Misztal I
J Dairy Sci; 2021 May; 104(5):5843-5853. PubMed ID: 33663836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Improving accuracy of genomic predictions within and between dairy cattle breeds with imputed high-density single nucleotide polymorphism panels.
Erbe M; Hayes BJ; Matukumalli LK; Goswami S; Bowman PJ; Reich CM; Mason BA; Goddard ME
J Dairy Sci; 2012 Jul; 95(7):4114-29. PubMed ID: 22720968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Application of single-step genomic evaluation using multiple-trait random regression test-day models in dairy cattle.
Oliveira HR; Lourenco DAL; Masuda Y; Misztal I; Tsuruta S; Jamrozik J; Brito LF; Silva FF; Schenkel FS
J Dairy Sci; 2019 Mar; 102(3):2365-2377. PubMed ID: 30638992
[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. Genomic prediction for Nordic Red Cattle using one-step and selection index blending.
Su G; Madsen P; Nielsen US; Mäntysaari EA; Aamand GP; Christensen OF; Lund MS
J Dairy Sci; 2012 Feb; 95(2):909-17. PubMed ID: 22281355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
