Past, present, and future developments in single-step genomic models

References

• Aguilar I, Legarra A, Cardoso F, Masuda Y, Lourenco D, Misztal I. 2019. Frequentist p-values for large-scale-single step genome-wide association, with an application to birth weight in American Angus cattle. Genet Sel E. 51(1):28.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aguilar I, Misztal I, Johnson DL, Legarra A, Tsuruta S, Lawlor TJ. 2010. Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. J Dairy Sci. 93(2):743–752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alvarenga AB, Veroneze R, Oliveira HR, Marques D, Lopes PS, Silva FF, Brito LF. 2020. Comparing alternative single-step GBLUP approaches and training population designs for genomic evaluation of crossbred animals. Front Genet. 11:263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben Zaabza H, Mäntysaari EA, Strandén I. 2020. Using Monte Carlo method to include polygenic effects in calculation of SNP-BLUP model reliability. J Dairy Sci. 103(6):5170–5182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben Zaabza H, Mäntysaari EA, Strandén I. 2021. Estimation of individual animal SNP-BLUP reliability using full Monte Carlo sampling. JDS Communications. 2(3):137–141.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bermann M, Legarra A, Hollifield MK, Masuda Y, Lourenco D, Misztal I. 2021. Validation of single-step GBLUP genomic predictions from threshold models using the linear regression method: an application in chicken mortality. J Anim Breed Genet. 138(1):4–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bermann M, Lourenco D, Misztal I. 2021. Efficient approximation of reliabilities for single-step genomic BLUP models with the Algorithm for Proven and Young. J. Anim. Sci. 100(1):skab353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernal Rubio YL, Gualdron Duarte JL, Bates RO, Ernst CW, Nonneman D, Rohrer GA, King A, Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Cantet RJC, et al. 2016. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association from genomic prediction models. Anim Genet. 47(1):36–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boichard D, Fritz S, Rossignol MN, Boscher MY, Malafosse A, Colleau JJ. 2002. Implementation of marker-assisted selection in dairy cattle. In ‘Proceedings of the 7th world congress of genetics applied to livestock production, Montpellier, France’. Communication no. 22–03.
   Google Scholar
• Bradford HL, Pocrnić I, Fragomeni BO, Lourenco D, Misztal I. 2017. Selection of core animals in the Algorithm for Proven and Young using a simulation model. J Anim Breed Genet. 134(6):545–552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cesarani A, Biffani S, Garcia A, Lourenco D, Bertolini G, Neglia G, Misztal I, Macciotta NPP. 2021. Genomic investigation of milk production in Italian buffalo. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 20(1):539–547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cesarani A, Gaspa G, Correddu F, Cellesi M, Dimauro C, Macciotta NPP. 2019. Genomic selection of milk fatty acid composition in Sarda dairy sheep: effect of different phenotypes and relationship matrices on heritability and breeding value accuracy. J Dairy Sci. 102(4):3189–3203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cesarani A, Masuda Y, Tsuruta S, Nicolazzi EL, VanRaden PM, Lourenco D, Misztal I. 2021. Genomic predictions for yield traits in US Holsteins with unknown parent groups. J Dairy Sci. 104(5):5843–5853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cesarani A, Pocrnic I, Macciotta NPP, Fragomeni BO, Misztal I, Lourenco D. 2019. Bias in heritability estimates from genomic restricted maximum likelihood methods under different genotyping strategies. J Anim Breed Genet. 136(1):40–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen OF, Börner V, Varona L, Legarra A. 2021. Genetic evaluation including intermediate omics features. Genetics. 219(2):iyab130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen OF, Lund MS. 2010. Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genet. Sel. Evol. 42(1):2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Christensen OF, Madsen P, Nielsen B, Ostersen T, Su G. 2012. Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs. Animal. 6(10):1565–1571.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen OF. 2012. Compatibility of pedigree-based and marker-based relationship matrices for single-step genetic evaluation. Genet Sel Evol. 44(1):37.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cole JB, VanRaden PM, O′Connell JR, Van Tassell CP, Sonstegard TS, Schnabel RD, Taylor JF, Wiggans GR. 2009. Distribution and location of genetic effects for dairy traits. J Dairy Sci. 92(6):2931–2946.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colleau JJ. 2002. An indirect approach to the extensive calculation of relationship coefficients. Genet. Sel. Evol. 34(4):409–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuyabano B, Sørensen AC, Sørensen P. 2018. Understanding the potential bias of variance components estimators when using genomic models. Genet Sel E. 50(1):41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dugué M, Dumont Saint Priest B, Crichan H, Danvy S, Ricard A. 2021. Genomic correlations between the gaits of young horses measured by accelerometry and functional longevity in jumping competition. Front Genet. 12:619947.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edel C, Pimentel E, Erbe M, Emmerling R, Götz KU. 2019. Short communication: calculating analytical reliabilities for single-step predictions. J Dairy Sci. 102(4):3259–3265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emamgholi Begli H, Schaeffer LR, Abdalla E, Lozada-Soto EA, Harlander-Matauschek A, Wood BJ, Baes CF. 2021. Genetic analysis of egg production traits in turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) using a single-step genomic random regression model. Genet Sel E. 53(1):61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falconer D, Mackay T.Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, Longman Essex, New York 1996. -, -p. 111–111. 3rd .
   Google Scholar
• Fernando R, Grossman M. 1989. Marker assisted selection using best linear unbiased prediction. Genet Sel Evol. 21(4):467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernando RL, Cheng H, Garrick DJ. 2016. An efficient exact method to obtain GBLUP and single-step GBLUP when the genomic relationship matrix is singular. Genet Sel E. 48(1):80.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fernando RL, Cheng H, Golden BL, Garrick DJ. 2016. Computational strategies for alternative single-step Bayesian regression models with large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals. Genet Sel E. 48(1):96.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fernando RL, Dekkers JC, Garrick DJ. 2014. A class of Bayesian methods to combine large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals for whole-genome analyses. Genet Sel Evol. 46 (1):50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fisher RA. 1919. The causes of human variability. The Eugenics Rev. 10(4):213–220.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Forni S, Aguilar I, Misztal I. 2011. Different genomic relationship matrices for single-step analysis using phenotypic, pedigree and genomic information. Genet Sel Evol. 43(1):1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fragomeni BO, Lourenco DA, Tsuruta S, Masuda Y, Aguilar I, Misztal I. 2015. Use of genomic recursions and algorithm for proven and young animals for single-step genomic BLUP analyses-a simulation study. J Anim Breed Genet. 132(5):340–345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao H, Christensen OF, Madsen P, Nielsen US, Zhang Y, Lund MS, Su G. 2012. Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two single-step blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population. Genet Sel Evol. 44(1):8. 8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garcia A, Bosworth B, Waldbieser G, Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Lourenco D. 2018. Development of genomic predictions for harvest and carcass weight in channel catfish. Genet Sel E. 50(1):66.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garcia-Baccino CA, Legarra A, Christensen OF, Misztal I, Pocrnic I, Vitezica ZG, Cantet RJ. 2017. Metafounders are related to Fst fixation indices and reduce bias in single-step genomic evaluations. Genet. Sel. E. 49(1):34.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garrick DJ, Garrick DP, Golden BL. 2018. An introduction to BOLT software for genetic and genomic evaluations. In Proceedings of The 11th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production; February (Vol. 11, p. 973).
   Google Scholar
• Gianola D, de los Campos G, Hill WG, Manfredi E, Fernando R. 2009. Additive genetic variability and the Bayesian alphabet. Genetics. 183(1):347–363.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gianola D, Schön CC. 2016. Cross-Validation Without Doing Cross-Validation in Genome-Enabled Prediction. G3 (Bethesda). 6(10):3107–3128.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gonzalez-Pena D, Gao G, Baranski M, Moen T, Cleveland BM, Kenney PB, Vallejo RL, Palti Y, Leeds TD. 2016. Genome-Wide Association Study for Identifying Loci that Affect Fillet Yield, Carcass, and Body Weight Traits in Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Front Genet. 7:203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta P, Reinsch N, Spötter A, Conrad T, Bienefeld K. 2013. Accuracy of the unified approach in maternally influenced traits-illustrated by a simulation study in the honey bee (Apis mellifera). BMC Genet. 14:36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris BL, Johnson DL. 2010. Genomic predictions for New Zealand dairy bulls and integration with national genetic evaluation. J Dairy Sci. 93(3):1243–1252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson CR. 1975. Best Linear Unbiased Estimation and Prediction under a Selection Model. Biometrics. 31(2):423–447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson CR. 1976. A Simple Method for Computing the Inverse of a Numerator Relationship Matrix Used in Prediction of Breeding Values. Biometrics. 32(1):69–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson CR. 1984. Applications of linear models in animal breeding. University of Guelph Press, Guelph, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Hidalgo J, Tsuruta S, Lourenco D, Masuda Y, Huang Y, Gray KA, Misztal I. 2020. Changes in genetic parameters for fitness and growth traits in pigs under genomic selection. J. Anim. Sci. 98(2):skaa032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofer A. 1998. Variance component estimation in animal breeding: a review†. J Anim Breed Genet. 115(1-6):247–265.
   Google Scholar
• Junqueira VS, Lopes PS, Lourenco D, Silva FFE, Cardoso FF. 2020. Applying the metafounders approach for genomic evaluation in a multibreed beef cattle population. Front Genet. 11:556399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang HM, Sul JH, Service SK, Zaitlen NA, Kong SY, Freimer NB, Sabatti C, Eskin E. 2010. Variance component model to account for sample structure in genome-wide association studies. Nat Genet. 42(4):348–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang HM, Zaitlen NA, Wade CM, Kirby A, Heckerman D, Daly MJ, Eskin E. 2008. Efficient control of population structure in model organism association mapping. Genetics. 178(3):1709–1723.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kluska S, Masuda Y, Ferraz J, Tsuruta S, Eler JP, Baldi F, Lourenco D. 2021. Metafounders May Reduce Bias in Composite Cattle Genomic Predictions. Front Genet. 12:678587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee J, Cheng H, Garrick D, Golden B, Dekkers J, Park K, Lee D, Fernando R. 2017. Comparison of alternative approaches to single-trait genomic prediction using genotyped and non-genotyped Hanwoo beef cattle. Genet Sel E. 49(1):2. 2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Legarra A, Aguilar I, Misztal I. 2009. A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. J Dairy Sci. 92(9):4656–4663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legarra A, Christensen OF, Vitezica ZG, Aguilar I, Misztal I. 2015. Ancestral relationships using metafounders: finite ancestral populations and across population relationships. Genetics. 200(2):455–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legarra A, Ducrocq V. 2012. Computational strategies for national integration of phenotypic, genomic, and pedigree data in a single-step best linear unbiased prediction. J Dairy Sci. 95(8):4629–4645.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legarra A, Reverter A. 2018. Semi-parametric estimates of population accuracy and bias of predictions of breeding values and future phenotypes using the LR method. Genet. Sel. E. 501:53.
   Google Scholar
• Lidauer M, Matilainen K, Mantysaari E, Pitkanen T, Taskinen M, Stranden I. 2015. Technical Reference Guide for MiX99 Solver. Natural Resources Institute Finland: Jokioinen, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Liu A, Lund MS, Boichard D, Karaman E, Guldbrandtsen B, Fritz S, Aamand GP, Nielsen US, Sahana G, Wang Y, et al. 2020. Weighted single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction integrating variants selected from sequencing data by association and bioinformatics analyses. Genet Sel E. 52(1):48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Z, Goddard ME, Hayes BJ, Reinhardt F, Reents R. 2016. Technical note: equivalent genomic models with a residual polygenic effect. J Dairy Sci. 99(3):2016–2025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Z, Goddard ME, Reinhardt F, Reents R. 2014. A single-step genomic model with direct estimation of marker effects. J Dairy Sci. 97(9):5833–5850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Z, VanRaden PM, Lidauer MH, Calus MP, Benhajali H, Jorjani H, Ducrocq V. 2017. Approximating genomic reliabilities for national genomic evaluation. Interbull Bull. 51:75–85.
   Google Scholar
• Lourenco DA, Fragomeni BO, Tsuruta S, Aguilar I, Zumbach B, Hawken RJ, Legarra A, Misztal I. 2015. Accuracy of estimated breeding values with genomic information on males, females, or both: an example on broiler chicken. Genet. Sel. E. 47(1):56.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lourenco DA, Tsuruta S, Fragomeni BO, Masuda Y, Aguilar I, Legarra A, Bertrand JK, Amen TS, Wang L, Moser DW, et al. 2015. Genetic evaluation using single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in American Angus. J Anim Sci. 93(6):2653–2662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lourenco DAL, Legarra A, Tsuruta S, Moser D, Miller S, Misztal I. 2018. Tuning indirect predictions based on SNP effects from single-step GBLUP. Interbull Bull. 53:48–53.
   Google Scholar
• Madsen P, Jensen J, Labouriau R, Christensen OF, Sahana G. 2014. DMU—A Package for Analyzing Multivariate Mixed Models in quantitative Genetics and Genomics. In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 17–22 August.
   Google Scholar
• Mancin E, Sosa-Madrid BS, Blasco A, Ibáñez-Escriche N. 2021. Genotype Imputation to Improve the Cost-Efficiency of Genomic Selection in Rabbits. Animals. 11(3):803.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysaari EA, Evans RD, Strandén I. 2017. Efficient single-step genomic evaluation for a multibreed beef cattle population having many genotyped animals. J Anim Sci. 95(11):4728–4737.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysaari EA, Koivula M, Strandén I. 2020. Symposium review: single-step genomic evaluations in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 103(6):5314–5326.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masuda Y, Misztal I, Legarra A, Tsuruta S, Lourenco DA, Fragomeni BO, Aguilar I. 2017. Technical note: avoiding the direct inversion of the numerator relationship matrix for genotyped animals in single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction solved with the preconditioned conjugate gradient. J. Anim. Sci. 95(1):49–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masuda Y, Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Legarra A, Aguilar I, Lourenco D, Fragomeni BO, Lawlor TJ. 2016. Implementation of genomic recursions in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor for US Holsteins with a large number of genotyped animals. J Dairy Sci. 99(3):1968–1974.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masuda Y, Tsuruta S, Bermann M, Bradford HL, Misztal I. 2021. Comparison of models for missing pedigree in single-step genomic prediction. J. Anim. Sci. 99(2):skab019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masuda Y, VanRaden PM, Tsuruta S, Lourenco D, Misztal I. 2021. Invited review: unknown-parent groups and metafounders in single-step genomic BLUP. J Dairy Sci.105(2):923-939.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meuwissen TH, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME. 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics. 157(4):1819–1829.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misztal I, Legarra A, Aguilar I. 2009. Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information. J Dairy Sci. 92(9):4648–4655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misztal I, Legarra A, Aguilar I. 2014. Using recursion to compute the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix. J Dairy Sci. 97(6):3943–3952.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Aguilar I, Legarra A, VanRaden PM, Lawlor TJ. 2013. Methods to approximate reliabilities in single-step genomic evaluation. J Dairy Sci. 96(1):647–654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Lourenco DAL, Masuda Y, Aguilar I, Legarra A, Vitezica Z. 2014. Manual for BLUPF90 family of programs.
   Google Scholar
• Misztal I, Vitezica ZG, Legarra A, Aguilar I, Swan AA. 2013. Unknown-parent groups in single-step genomic evaluation. J Anim Breed Genet. 130(4):252–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misztal I. 2016. Inexpensive Computation of the Inverse of the Genomic Relationship Matrix in Populations with Small Effective Population Size. Genetics. 202(2):401–409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulder HA, Lidauer M, Strandén I, Mäntysaari EA, Pool MH, Veerkamp RF. 2012. MiXBLUP Manual. Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands
   Google Scholar
• Nilforooshan MA, Lee M. 2019. The quality of the algorithm for proven and young with various sets of core animals in a multibreed sheep population1. J Anim Sci. 97(3):1090–1100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilforooshan MA. 2020. Application of single-step GBLUP in New Zealand Romney sheep. Anim Prod Sci. 60(9):1136–1144.
   Google Scholar
• Ødegård J, Indahl U, Strandén I, Meuwissen T. 2018. Large-scale genomic prediction using singular value decomposition of the genotype matrix. Genet Sel E. 50(1):6. 6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oliveira HR, Lourenco D, Masuda Y, Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Jamrozik J, Brito LF, Silva FF, Schenkel FS. 2019. Application of single-step genomic evaluation using multiple-trait random regression test-day models in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 102(3):2365–2377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patry C, Ducrocq V. 2011. Evidence of biases in genetic evaluations due to genomic preselection in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 94(2):1011–1020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson K. 1903. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. —XI. On the influence of natural selection on the variability and correlation of organs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 2001–66.
   Google Scholar
• Pimentel E, Edel C, Emmerling R, Götz KU. 2019. Technical note: methods for interim prediction of single-step breeding values for young animals. J Dairy Sci. 102(4):3266–3273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pocrnic I, Lourenco DA, Masuda Y, Misztal I. 2016. Dimensionality of genomic information and performance of the Algorithm for Proven and Young for different livestock species. Genet. Sel. E. 48(1):82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Powell JE, Visscher PM, Goddard ME. 2010. Reconciling the analysis of IBD and IBS in complex trait studies. Nat Rev Genet. 11(11):800–805.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quaas RL, Pollak EJ. 1981. Modified equations for sire mod- els with groups. J. Dairy Sci. 64(9):1868–1872. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(81)82778-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quaas RL. 1976. Computing the Diagonal Elements and Inverse of a Large Numerator Relationship Matrix. Biometrics. 32(4):949–953.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quaas RL. 1988. Additive Genetic Model with Groups and Relationships. J. Dairy Sci. 71(5):1338–1345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strandén I, Garrick DJ. 2009. Technical note: derivation of equivalent computing algorithms for genomic predictions and reliabilities of animal merit. J Dairy Sci. 92(6):2971–2975.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strandén I, Matilainen K, Aamand GP, Mäntysaari EA. 2017. Solving efficiently large single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction models. J Anim Breed Genet. 134(3):264–274.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taskinen M, Mäntysaari EA, Strandén I. 2017. Single-step SNP-BLUP with on-the-fly imputed genotypes and residual polygenic effects. Genet Sel E. 49(1):36.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Teissier M, Larroque H, Robert-Granié C. 2018. Weighted single-step genomic BLUP improves accuracy of genomic breeding values for protein content in French dairy goats: a quantitative trait influenced by a major gene. Genet Sel E. 50(1):31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thompson R. 2001. Statistical validation of genetic models. Livestock Production Science. 72(1-2):129–134. Volume IssuesPages ISSN 0301-6226,.
   Google Scholar
• Tsuruta S, Lourenco DAL, Masuda Y, Misztal I, Lawlor TJ. 2019. Controlling bias in genomic breeding values for young genotyped bulls. J Dairy Sci. 102(11):9956–9970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vallejo RL, Cheng H, Fragomeni BO, Shewbridge KL, Gao G, MacMillan JR, Towner R, Palti Y. 2019. Genome-wide association analysis and accuracy of genome-enabled breeding value predictions for resistance to infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus in a commercial rainbow trout breeding population. Genet. Sel. E. 51(1):47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandenplas J, Calus M, Eding H, Vuik C. 2019. A second-level diagonal preconditioner for single-step SNPBLUP. Genet Sel E. 51(1):30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vandenplas J, Calus M, Ten Napel J. 2018. Sparse single-step genomic BLUP in crossbreeding schemes. J Anim Sci. 96(6):2060–2073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandenplas J, Eding H, Calus M, Vuik C. 2018. Deflated preconditioned conjugate gradient method for solving single-step BLUP models efficiently. Genet Sel E. 50(1):51.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• VanRaden PM, Tooker ME, Chud T, Norman HD, Megonigal JH, Haagen IW, Jr., Wiggans GR. 2020. Genomic predictions for crossbred dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 103(2):1620–1631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanRaden PM. 2008. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J. Dairy Sci. 91(11):4414–4423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varona L, Legarra A, Toro MA, Vitezica ZG. 2018. Non-additive Effects in Genomic Selection. Front Genet. 9:78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitezica ZG, Aguilar I, Misztal I, Legarra A. 2011. Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection. Genet Res (Camb). 93(5):357–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang H, Misztal I, Aguilar I, Legarra A, Muir WM. 2012. Genome-wide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes. Genet Res (Camb). 94(2):73–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westell RA, Quaas RL, Van Vleck LD. 1988. Genetic groups in an animal model. J. Dairy Sci. 71(5):1310–1318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiang T, Christensen OF, Legarra A. 2017. Technical note: genomic evaluation for crossbred performance in a single-step approach with metafounders. J Anim Sci. 95(4):1472–1480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan Y, Wu G, Liu A, Sun C, Han W, Li G, Yang N. 2018. Genomic prediction in a nuclear population of layers using single-step models. Poult Sci. 97(2):397–402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Z, Kargo M, Liu A, Thomasen JR, Pan Y, Su G. 2019. Genotype-by-environment interaction of fertility traits in Danish Holstein cattle using a single-step genomic reaction norm model. Heredity (Edinb). 123(2):202–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Z, Liu J, Ding X, Bijma P, de Koning DJ, Zhang Q. 2010. Best linear unbiased prediction of genomic breeding values using a trait-specific marker-derived relationship matrix. PLoS One. 5(9):e12648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar