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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7883613)

  • 1. Effects of data structure on variance of prediction error and accuracy of genetic evaluation.
    Tosh JJ; Wilton JW
    J Anim Sci; 1994 Oct; 72(10):2568-77. PubMed ID: 7883613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Adapting best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) for timely genetic evaluation: II. Progeny traits in multiple contemporary groups within a herd.
    Lofgren DL; Harris DL; Stewart TS; Schinckel AP
    J Anim Sci; 1989 Dec; 67(12):3223-42. PubMed ID: 2613571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of accounting for different phenotypic variances by sire breed and sex on selection of sires based on expected progeny differences for 200- and 365-day weights.
    Rodríguez-Almeida FA; Van Vleck LD; Cundiff LV
    J Anim Sci; 1995 Sep; 73(9):2589-99. PubMed ID: 8582848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Adapting best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) for timely genetic evaluation: I. Progeny traits in a single contemporary group for each sex.
    Harris DL; Lofgren DL; Stewart TS; Schinckel AP
    J Anim Sci; 1989 Dec; 67(12):3209-22. PubMed ID: 2613570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Managing the risk of comparing estimated breeding values across flocks or herds through connectedness: a review and application.
    Kuehn LA; Lewis RM; Notter DR
    Genet Sel Evol; 2007; 39(3):225-47. PubMed ID: 17433239
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Rapid inversion of additive by additive relationship matrices by including sire-dam combination effects.
    VanRaden PM; Hoeschele I
    J Dairy Sci; 1991 Feb; 74(2):570-9. PubMed ID: 2045563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Prediction accuracies and genetic parameters for test-day traits from genomic and pedigree-based random regression models with or without heat stress interactions.
    Bohlouli M; Alijani S; Naderi S; Yin T; König S
    J Dairy Sci; 2019 Jan; 102(1):488-502. PubMed ID: 30343923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Optimal contemporary group structure to maximize genetic progress through genetic evaluation of swine.
    Lofgren DL; Stewart TS
    J Anim Sci; 1994 Sep; 72(9):2254-9. PubMed ID: 8002444
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The contribution of progeny of uncertain paternity to the accuracy of sire evaluation.
    Famula TR
    J Anim Sci; 1993 May; 71(5):1136-41. PubMed ID: 8505245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Genetic progress in multistage dairy cattle breeding schemes using genetic markers.
    Schrooten C; Bovenhuis H; van Arendonk JA; Bijma P
    J Dairy Sci; 2005 Apr; 88(4):1569-81. PubMed ID: 15778327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Phenotypic trends and breeding values for canine congenital sensorineural deafness in Dalmatian dogs].
    Blum M; Distl O
    Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 2014; 127(1-2):70-6. PubMed ID: 24490346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Genetic evaluation in the presence of uncertain additive relationships. I. Use of phenotypic information to ascertain paternity.
    Sapp RL; Zhang W; Bertrand JK; Rekaya R
    J Anim Sci; 2007 Oct; 85(10):2391-400. PubMed ID: 17504957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Modeling additive and non-additive effects in a hybrid population using genome-wide genotyping: prediction accuracy implications.
    Bouvet JM; Makouanzi G; Cros D; Vigneron P
    Heredity (Edinb); 2016 Feb; 116(2):146-57. PubMed ID: 26328760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A method for the prediction of multitrait breeding values for use in stochastic simulation to compare progeny-testing schemes, with large progeny groups for proven sires.
    Eikje LS; Schaeffer LR; Ådnøy T; Klemetsdal G; Ødegård J
    J Anim Breed Genet; 2012 Jun; 129(3):188-94. PubMed ID: 22583323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Approximating prediction error variances for multiple trait sire evaluations.
    Greenhalgh SA; Quaas RL; van Vleck LD
    J Dairy Sci; 1986 Nov; 69(11):2877-83. PubMed ID: 3805460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Estimation of prediction error variances via Monte Carlo sampling methods using different formulations of the prediction error variance.
    Hickey JM; Veerkamp RF; Calus MP; Mulder HA; Thompson R
    Genet Sel Evol; 2009 Feb; 41(1):23. PubMed ID: 19284698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Genotyping strategies for genomic selection in small dairy cattle populations.
    Jiménez-Montero JA; González-Recio O; Alenda R
    Animal; 2012 Aug; 6(8):1216-24. PubMed ID: 23217224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Modeling pedigree accuracy and uncertain parentage in single-step genomic evaluations of simulated and US Holstein datasets.
    Bradford HL; Masuda Y; Cole JB; Misztal I; VanRaden PM
    J Dairy Sci; 2019 Mar; 102(3):2308-2318. PubMed ID: 30639024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. DNA-based paternity analysis and genetic evaluation in a large, commercial cattle ranch setting.
    Van Eenennaam AL; Weaber RL; Drake DJ; Penedo MC; Quaas RL; Garrick DJ; Pollak EJ
    J Anim Sci; 2007 Dec; 85(12):3159-69. PubMed ID: 17878282
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of Simmental carcass EPD estimated using live and carcass data.
    Crews DH; Pollak EJ; Quaas RL
    J Anim Sci; 2004 Mar; 82(3):661-7. PubMed ID: 15032422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.