World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Biology and Biochemistry

D-Index
64
Citations
24323
World Ranking
9457
National Ranking
41

Theo H. E. Meuwissen publication distribution in Biology and Biochemistry in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Biology and Biochemistry in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Theo H. E. Meuwissen sits on this spectrum.

47–56 publications: 8 scientists 57–66 publications: 35 scientists 67–76 publications: 106 scientists 77–86 publications: 231 scientists 87–96 publications: 414 scientists 97–106 publications: 546 scientists 107–116 publications: 704 scientists 117–126 publications: 849 scientists 127–136 publications: 980 scientists 137–146 publications: 942 scientists 147–156 publications: 969 scientists 157–166 publications: 950 scientists 167–176 publications: 951 scientists 177–186 publications: 915 scientists 187–196 publications: 787 scientists 197–206 publications: 841 scientists 207–216 publications: 735 scientists 217–226 publications: 709 scientists 227–236 publications: 651 scientists 237–246 publications: 605 scientists 247–256 publications: 510 scientists 257–266 publications: 524 scientists 267–276 publications: 434 scientists 277–286 publications: 418 scientists 287–296 publications: 350 scientists 297–306 publications: 363 scientists 307–316 publications: 315 scientists 317–326 publications: 296 scientists 327–336 publications: 261 scientists 337–346 publications: 240 scientists 347–356 publications: 219 scientists 357–366 publications: 197 scientists 367–376 publications: 154 scientists 377–386 publications: 161 scientists 387–396 publications: 155 scientists 397–406 publications: 145 scientists 407–416 publications: 124 scientists 417–426 publications: 112 scientists 427–436 publications: 132 scientists 437–446 publications: 116 scientists 447–456 publications: 99 scientists 457–466 publications: 81 scientists 467–476 publications: 91 scientists 477–486 publications: 80 scientists 487–496 publications: 80 scientists 497–506 publications: 60 scientists 507–516 publications: 36 scientists 517–526 publications: 46 scientists 527–536 publications: 54 scientists 537–546 publications: 44 scientists 547–556 publications: 43 scientists 557–566 publications: 43 scientists 567–576 publications: 42 scientists 577–586 publications: 25 scientists 587–596 publications: 34 scientists 597–606 publications: 23 scientists 607–616 publications: 33 scientists 617–626 publications: 31 scientists 627–636 publications: 27 scientists 637–646 publications: 25 scientists 647–656 publications: 28 scientists 657–666 publications: 34 scientists 667–676 publications: 18 scientists 677–686 publications: 16 scientists 687–696 publications: 10 scientists 697–706 publications: 12 scientists 707–716 publications: 21 scientists 717–726 publications: 12 scientists 727–736 publications: 12 scientists 737–746 publications: 10 scientists 747–756 publications: 7 scientists 757–766 publications: 13 scientists 767–776 publications: 15 scientists 777–786 publications: 13 scientists 787–796 publications: 9 scientists 797–806 publications: 9 scientists 807–816 publications: 7 scientists 817–826 publications: 4 scientists 827–836 publications: 9 scientists 837–846 publications: 7 scientists 847–856 publications: 3 scientists 857–866 publications: 5 scientists 867–876 publications: 5 scientists 877–886 publications: 11 scientists 887–896 publications: 3 scientists 897–906 publications: 4 scientists 907–916 publications: 7 scientists 917–926 publications: 5 scientists 927–936 publications: 6 scientists 937–946 publications: 6 scientists 947–956 publications: 3 scientists 957–966 publications: 7 scientists 967–976 publications: 2 scientists 977–986 publications: 2 scientists 987–996 publications: 1 scientists 997–1,006 publications: 5 scientists 1,007–1,016 publications: 2 scientists 1,017–1,026 publications: 2 scientists 1,027 publications: 1 scientists 1,028+ publications: 100 scientists
47 publications 1,028+

This scientist: 237 publications — 63rd percentile

63% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 1,028 publications or more.

Theo H. E. Meuwissen D-index placement in Biology and Biochemistry in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Biology and Biochemistry scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Theo H. E. Meuwissen sits on this spectrum.

40–41 D-Index: 80 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 183 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 317 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 504 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 718 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 900 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 1,026 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 1,150 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 1,236 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 1,253 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 1,163 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 1,131 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 1,032 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 897 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 814 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 715 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 709 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 596 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 512 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 473 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 412 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 373 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 358 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 285 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 273 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 227 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 208 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 193 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 153 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 157 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 148 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 120 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 113 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 100 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 86 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 67 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 72 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 73 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 64 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 53 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 60 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 54 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 43 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 38 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 49 scientists 130–131 D-Index: 26 scientists 132–133 D-Index: 18 scientists 134–135 D-Index: 23 scientists 136–137 D-Index: 32 scientists 138–139 D-Index: 32 scientists 140–141 D-Index: 27 scientists 142–143 D-Index: 19 scientists 144–145 D-Index: 22 scientists 146–147 D-Index: 12 scientists 148–149 D-Index: 16 scientists 150–151 D-Index: 14 scientists 152–153 D-Index: 10 scientists 154–155 D-Index: 13 scientists 156–157 D-Index: 10 scientists 158–159 D-Index: 7 scientists 160–161 D-Index: 9 scientists 162–163 D-Index: 13 scientists 164–165 D-Index: 4 scientists 166 D-Index: 4 scientists 167+ D-Index: 98 scientists
40 D-Index 167+

This scientist: 64 D-Index — 52nd percentile

52% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 167 D-Index or more.

Overview

Theo H. E. Meuwissen is affiliated with the Norwegian University of Life Sciences in Norway. Their research spans multiple areas within biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology, with significant contributions in agricultural and biological sciences.

Their work concentrates on genetics, with a focus on genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock, genetic mapping and diversity in both plants and animals, genetics and plant breeding, genetic diversity and population structure, reproductive physiology in livestock, animal behavior and welfare studies, and animal genetics and reproduction.

Frequent co-authors in their publications include Arne B. Gjuvsland, Anna K. Sonesson, L. S. Eikje, Maria Kjetså, and Øyvind Nordbø.

They have published extensively in specific venues such as the Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Frontiers in Genetics, Genetics Selection Evolution, animal, and the Journal of Dairy Science.

Recent papers include the following:

  • Management of Genetic Diversity in the Era of Genomics, 2020, Frontiers in Genetics
  • Genomic dissection of maternal, additive and non-additive genetic effects for growth and carcass traits in Nile tilapia, 2020, Genetics Selection Evolution
  • Removing data and using metafounders alleviates biases for all traits in Lacaune dairy sheep predictions, 2022, Journal of Dairy Science
  • Identification of Genomic Variants Causing Variation in Quantitative Traits: A Review, 2022, Agriculture
  • Accuracy of genomic prediction of host resistance to salmon lice in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) using imputed high-density genotypes, 2020, Aquaculture

Best Publications

  • Prediction of Total Genetic Value Using Genome-Wide Dense Marker Maps

    T. H. E. Meuwissen;B. J. Hayes;M. E. Goddard

  • Maximizing the response of selection with a predefined rate of inbreeding.

    T.H.E. Meuwissen

  • Fine-mapping inflammatory bowel disease loci to single-variant resolution

    Hailiang Huang;Hailiang Huang;Ming Fang;Luke Jostins;Maša Umićević Mirkov

  • Genomic selection: A paradigm shift in animal breeding

    Theo Meuwissen;Ben Hayes;Mike Goddard

  • Accuracy of Genomic Selection Using Different Methods to Define Haplotypes

    M P L Calus;T H E Meuwissen;A P W de Roos;R F Veerkamp

  • Accurate Prediction of Genetic Values for Complex Traits by Whole-Genome Resequencing

    Theo H.E. Meuwissen;Mike E. Goddard

  • Accelerating improvement of livestock with genomic selection.

    Theo Meuwissen;Ben Hayes;Mike Goddard

  • Fine mapping of quantitative trait loci using linkage disequilibria with closely linked marker loci.

    T.H.E. Meuwissen;M.E. Goddard

  • Accuracy of breeding values of 'unrelated' individuals predicted by dense SNP genotyping

    Theo H E Meuwissen

  • Genomic selection using different marker types and densities

    T R Solberg;A K Sonesson;John Woolliams;T H E Meuwissen

  • The use of marker haplotypes in animal breeding schemes

    ME Goddard

  • Prediction of identity by descent probabilities from marker-haplotypes

    Theo H.E. Meuwissen;Mike E. Goddard

  • Testing strategies for genomic selection in aquaculture breeding programs

    Anna K Sonesson;Theo H E Meuwissen

  • The Accuracy of Genomic Selection in Norwegian Red Cattle Assessed by Cross-Validation

    Tu Luan;John A Woolliams;Sigbjørn Lien;Matthew Kent

  • Fine mapping of a quantitative trait locus for twinning rate using combined linkage and linkage disequilibrium mapping.

    Theo H E Meuwissen;Astrid Karlsen;Sigbjørn Lien;Ingrid Olsaker

  • Genomic prediction in an admixed population of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)

    Jørgen Ødegård;Thomas Moen;Nina Santi;Sven A. Korsvoll

  • Mapping multiple QTL using linkage disequilibrium and linkage analysis information and multitrait data

    Theo H.E. Meuwissen;Mike E. Goddard

  • Genomic selection requires genomic control of inbreeding

    Anna K Sonesson;John A Woolliams;Theo H E Meuwissen

  • Mating schemes for optimum contribution selection with constrained rates of inbreeding.

    Anna K. Sonesson;Theo H.E. Meuwissen

  • Assessing the contribution of breeds to genetic diversity in conservation schemes

    Herwin Eding;Richard P.M.A. Crooijmans;Martien A.M. Groenen;Theo H.E. Meuwissen

Frequent Co-Authors

Anna K. Sonesson
Anna K. Sonesson Marin Software
John Woolliams
John Woolliams University of Edinburgh
Jørgen Ødegård
Jørgen Ødegård Norwegian University of Life Sciences
Michael E. Goddard
Michael E. Goddard University of Melbourne
Sigbjørn Lien
Sigbjørn Lien Norwegian University of Life Sciences
Ben J. Hayes
Ben J. Hayes University of Queensland
Jörn Bennewitz
Jörn Bennewitz University of Hohenheim
Roel F. Veerkamp
Roel F. Veerkamp Wageningen University & Research
Peer Berg
Peer Berg Norwegian University of Life Sciences
Juha Kantanen
Juha Kantanen Natural Resources Institute Finland

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

As the demand for experts in Biology and Biochemistry grows, students often look for flexible options to advance their education or switch careers. Online degrees offer convenient pathways into a wide range of health-related fields. For those interested in nutrition, the fastest nutrition degree online programs allow students to graduate quickly and start their careers sooner.

If you’re seeking leadership roles in healthcare, considering an affordable online mba healthcare management program can be a smart step. These programs open doors to management positions without a hefty price tag.

The healthcare field also offers opportunities that don’t require a traditional science background. For example, medical coding is a critical behind-the-scenes role. If you’re curious about certification options, see how a certified professional coder compares to other credentials, including differences in cost and salary prospects.

Lastly, for details on earning potential and the certification process, read our guide on how much do medical coders make. Exploring these alternative or supplemental career pathways broadens your options within the fast-evolving health and life science sectors.

Best Scientists Citing Theo H. E. Meuwissen

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles