166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37460964)
21. 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]
22. A comprehensive study on size and definition of the core group in the proven and young algorithm for single-step GBLUP.
Abdollahi-Arpanahi R; Lourenco D; Misztal I
Genet Sel Evol; 2022 May; 54(1):34. PubMed ID: 35596130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. SNP profile for quantitative trait nucleotide in populations with small effective size and its impact on mapping and genomic predictions.
Pocrnic I; Lourenco D; Misztal I
Genetics; 2024 Jun; ():. PubMed ID: 38913695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Accuracy of prediction of simulated polygenic phenotypes and their underlying quantitative trait loci genotypes using real or imputed whole-genome markers in cattle.
Hassani S; Saatchi M; Fernando RL; Garrick DJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Dec; 47():99. PubMed ID: 26698091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Opportunities for genomic selection of cheese-making traits in Montbéliarde cows.
Sanchez MP; Tribout T; Fritz S; Wolf V; Laithier C; Brochard M; Boichard D
J Dairy Sci; 2022 Jun; 105(6):5206-5220. PubMed ID: 35450715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Genomic prediction using pooled data in a single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction framework.
Baller JL; Kachman SD; Kuehn LA; Spangler ML
J Anim Sci; 2020 Jun; 98(6):. PubMed ID: 32497209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Multiple-trait analyses improved the accuracy of genomic prediction and the power of genome-wide association of productivity and climate change-adaptive traits in lodgepole pine.
Cappa EP; Chen C; Klutsch JG; Sebastian-Azcona J; Ratcliffe B; Wei X; Da Ros L; Ullah A; Liu Y; Benowicz A; Sadoway S; Mansfield SD; Erbilgin N; Thomas BR; El-Kassaby YA
BMC Genomics; 2022 Jul; 23(1):536. PubMed ID: 35870886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. Impact of genotyping strategy on the accuracy of genomic prediction in simulated populations of purebred swine.
Li X; Zhang Z; Liu X; Chen Y
Animal; 2019 Sep; 13(9):1804-1810. PubMed ID: 30616709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Accuracy of genomic BLUP when considering a genomic relationship matrix based on the number of the largest eigenvalues: a simulation study.
Pocrnic I; Lourenco DAL; Masuda Y; Misztal I
Genet Sel Evol; 2019 Dec; 51(1):75. PubMed ID: 31830899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The Relative Power of Structural Genomic Variation versus SNPs in Explaining the Quantitative Trait Growth in the Marine Teleost
Ruigrok M; Xue B; Catanach A; Zhang M; Jesson L; Davy M; Wellenreuther M
Genes (Basel); 2022 Jun; 13(7):. PubMed ID: 35885912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Leveraging low-density crossbred genotypes to offset crossbred phenotypes and their impact on purebred predictions.
Leite NG; Chen CY; Herring WO; Holl J; Tsuruta S; Lourenco D
J Anim Sci; 2022 Dec; 100(12):. PubMed ID: 36309902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. 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]
38. Genetic evaluations for endangered dual-purpose German Black Pied cattle using 50K SNPs, a breed-specific 200K chip, and whole-genome sequencing.
Wolf MJ; Neumann GB; Kokuć P; Yin T; Brockmann GA; König S; May K
J Dairy Sci; 2023 May; 106(5):3345-3358. PubMed ID: 37028956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The effects of demography and long-term selection on the accuracy of genomic prediction with sequence data.
MacLeod IM; Hayes BJ; Goddard ME
Genetics; 2014 Dec; 198(4):1671-84. PubMed ID: 25233989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Genomic prediction using imputed whole-genome sequence data in Holstein Friesian cattle.
van Binsbergen R; Calus MP; Bink MC; van Eeuwijk FA; Schrooten C; Veerkamp RF
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Sep; 47(1):71. PubMed ID: 26381777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
