140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37018338)
1. DeepCGP: A Deep Learning Method to Compress Genome-Wide Polymorphisms for Predicting Phenotype of Rice.
Islam T; Kim CH; Iwata H; Shimono H; Kimura A
IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform; 2023; 20(3):2078-2088. PubMed ID: 37018338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. deepGBLUP: joint deep learning networks and GBLUP framework for accurate genomic prediction of complex traits in Korean native cattle.
Lee HJ; Lee JH; Gondro C; Koh YJ; Lee SH
Genet Sel Evol; 2023 Jul; 55(1):56. PubMed ID: 37525091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Deep learning versus parametric and ensemble methods for genomic prediction of complex phenotypes.
Abdollahi-Arpanahi R; Gianola D; Peñagaricano F
Genet Sel Evol; 2020 Feb; 52(1):12. PubMed ID: 32093611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Genomic predictions can accelerate selection for resistance against Piscirickettsia salmonis in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar).
Bangera R; Correa K; Lhorente JP; Figueroa R; Yáñez JM
BMC Genomics; 2017 Jan; 18(1):121. PubMed ID: 28143402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Accuracy of genomic selection for a sib-evaluated trait using identity-by-state and identity-by-descent relationships.
Vela-Avitúa S; Meuwissen TH; Luan T; Ødegård J
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Feb; 47(1):9. PubMed ID: 25888184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Interpretable artificial neural networks incorporating Bayesian alphabet models for genome-wide prediction and association studies.
Zhao T; Fernando R; Cheng H
G3 (Bethesda); 2021 Sep; 11(10):. PubMed ID: 34499126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Accuracy of predicting genomic breeding values for residual feed intake in Angus and Charolais beef cattle.
Chen L; Schenkel F; Vinsky M; Crews DH; Li C
J Anim Sci; 2013 Oct; 91(10):4669-78. PubMed ID: 24078618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Genome-wide prediction using Bayesian additive regression trees.
Waldmann P
Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Jun; 48(1):42. PubMed ID: 27286957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Genome-enabled prediction of meat and carcass traits using Bayesian regression, single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction and blending methods in Nelore cattle.
Lopes FB; Baldi F; Passafaro TL; Brunes LC; Costa MFO; Eifert EC; Narciso MG; Rosa GJM; Lobo RB; Magnabosco CU
Animal; 2021 Jan; 15(1):100006. PubMed ID: 33516009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Toward integration of genomic selection with crop modelling: the development of an integrated approach to predicting rice heading dates.
Onogi A; Watanabe M; Mochizuki T; Hayashi T; Nakagawa H; Hasegawa T; Iwata H
Theor Appl Genet; 2016 Apr; 129(4):805-817. PubMed ID: 26791836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Bayesian neural networks with variable selection for prediction of genotypic values.
van Bergen GHH; Duenk P; Albers CA; Bijma P; Calus MPL; Wientjes YCJ; Kappen HJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2020 May; 52(1):26. PubMed ID: 32414320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Comparison of alternative approaches to single-trait genomic prediction using genotyped and non-genotyped Hanwoo beef cattle.
Lee J; Cheng H; Garrick D; Golden B; Dekkers J; Park K; Lee D; Fernando R
Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Jan; 49(1):2. PubMed ID: 28093065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Multibreed genomic prediction using multitrait genomic residual maximum likelihood and multitask Bayesian variable selection.
Calus MPL; Goddard ME; Wientjes YCJ; Bowman PJ; Hayes BJ
J Dairy Sci; 2018 May; 101(5):4279-4294. PubMed ID: 29550121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. GMStool: GWAS-based marker selection tool for genomic prediction from genomic data.
Jeong S; Kim JY; Kim N
Sci Rep; 2020 Nov; 10(1):19653. PubMed ID: 33184432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. New Deep Learning Genomic-Based Prediction Model for Multiple Traits with Binary, Ordinal, and Continuous Phenotypes.
Montesinos-López OA; Martín-Vallejo J; Crossa J; Gianola D; Hernández-Suárez CM; Montesinos-López A; Juliana P; Singh R
G3 (Bethesda); 2019 May; 9(5):1545-1556. PubMed ID: 30858235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluation of Bayesian alphabet and GBLUP based on different marker density for genomic prediction in Alpine Merino sheep.
Zhu S; Guo T; Yuan C; Liu J; Li J; Han M; Zhao H; Wu Y; Sun W; Wang X; Wang T; Liu J; Tiambo CK; Yue Y; Yang B
G3 (Bethesda); 2021 Oct; 11(11):. PubMed ID: 34849779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Genomic prediction based on data from three layer lines: a comparison between linear methods.
Calus MP; Huang H; Vereijken A; Visscher J; Ten Napel J; Windig JJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2014 Oct; 46(1):57. PubMed ID: 25927219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
