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.
22. MAGE: metafounders-assisted genomic estimation of breeding value, a novel additive-dominance single-step model in crossbreeding systems. Zhuo Y; Du H; Diao C; Li W; Zhou L; Jiang L; Jiang J; Liu J Bioinformatics; 2024 Feb; 40(2):. PubMed ID: 38268487 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A multivariate gametic model for the analysis of purebred and crossbred data. An example between two populations of Iberian pigs. Srihi H; López-Carbonell D; Ibáñez-Escriche N; Casellas J; Hernández P; Negro S; Varona L J Anim Breed Genet; 2024 Mar; 141(2):153-162. PubMed ID: 37888514 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Genomic prediction of crossbred performance based on purebred Landrace and Yorkshire data using a dominance model. Esfandyari H; Bijma P; Henryon M; Christensen OF; Sørensen AC Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Jun; 48(1):40. PubMed ID: 27276993 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Combined purebred and crossbred genetic evaluation of Columbia, Suffolk, and crossbred lamb birth and weaning weights: systematic effects and heterogeneous variances. Vargas Jurado N; Notter DR; Taylor JB; Brown DJ; Mousel MR; Lewis RM J Anim Sci; 2024 Jan; 102():. PubMed ID: 38085934 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Prediction of the reliability of genomic breeding values for crossbred performance. Vandenplas J; Windig JJ; Calus MPL Genet Sel Evol; 2017 May; 49(1):43. PubMed ID: 28499351 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Genomic selection for crossbred performance accounting for breed-specific effects. Lopes MS; Bovenhuis H; Hidalgo AM; van Arendonk JAM; Knol EF; Bastiaansen JWM Genet Sel Evol; 2017 Jun; 49(1):51. PubMed ID: 28651536 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Imputation of non-genotyped F1 dams to improve genetic gain in swine crossbreeding programs. See GM; Fix JS; Schwab CR; Spangler ML J Anim Sci; 2022 May; 100(5):. PubMed ID: 35451025 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Genomic clustering helps to improve prediction in a multibreed population. Ventura R; Larmer S; Schenkel FS; Miller SP; Sullivan P J Anim Sci; 2016 May; 94(5):1844-56. PubMed ID: 27285682 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Pedigree and genomic evaluation of pigs using a terminal-cross model. Tusell L; Gilbert H; Riquet J; Mercat MJ; Legarra A; Larzul C Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Apr; 48():32. PubMed ID: 27056443 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Genomic evaluation by including dominance effects and inbreeding depression for purebred and crossbred performance with an application in pigs. Xiang T; Christensen OF; Vitezica ZG; Legarra A Genet Sel Evol; 2016 Nov; 48(1):92. PubMed ID: 27887565 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
34. A bivariate genomic model with additive, dominance and inbreeding depression effects for sire line and three-way crossbred pigs. Christensen OF; Nielsen B; Su G; Xiang T; Madsen P; Ostersen T; Velander I; Strathe AB Genet Sel Evol; 2019 Aug; 51(1):45. PubMed ID: 31426753 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Crossbred evaluations using single-step genomic BLUP and algorithm for proven and young with different sources of data1. Pocrnic I; Lourenco DAL; Chen CY; Herring WO; Misztal I J Anim Sci; 2019 Apr; 97(4):1513-1522. PubMed ID: 30726939 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Optimal definition of contemporary groups for crossbred pigs in a joint purebred and crossbred genetic evaluation. Steyn Y; Lourenco DA; Chen CY; Valente BD; Holl J; Herring WO; Misztal I J Anim Sci; 2021 Jan; 99(1):. PubMed ID: 33313883 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Accuracy of genotype imputation based on random and selected reference sets in purebred and crossbred sheep populations and its effect on accuracy of genomic prediction. Moghaddar N; Gore KP; Daetwyler HD; Hayes BJ; van der Werf JH Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Dec; 47():97. PubMed ID: 26694131 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Single-step genomic predictions for crossbred Holstein and Jersey cattle in the United States. Cesarani A; Lourenco D; Bermann M; Nicolazzi EL; VanRaden PM; Misztal I JDS Commun; 2024 Mar; 5(2):124-128. PubMed ID: 38482122 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Imputation of genotypes in Danish purebred and two-way crossbred pigs using low-density panels. Xiang T; Ma P; Ostersen T; Legarra A; Christensen OF Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Jun; 47(1):54. PubMed ID: 26122927 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]