Evaluation of reproductive barriers contributes to the development of novel interspecific hybrids in the Kalanchoe genus

Background: Interspecific hybridization is a useful tool in ornamental breeding to increase genetic variability and introduce new valuable traits into existing cultivars. The successful formation of interspecific hybrids is frequently limited by the presence of pre- and post-fertilization barriers. In the present study, we investigated the nature of hybridization barriers occurring in crosses between Kalanchoe species and evaluated possibilities of obtaining interspecific hybrids. Results: The qualitative and quantitative analyses of pollen tube growth in situ were performed following intra-and interspecific pollinations. They revealed occurrence of pre-fertilization barriers associated with inhibition of pollen germination on the stigma and abnormal growth of pollen tubes. Unilateral incongruity related to differences in pistil length was also observed. The pollen quality was identified as a strong factor influencing the number of pollen tubes germinating in the stigma. In relation to post-fertilization barriers, endosperm degeneration was a probable barrier hampering production of interspecific hybrids. Moreover, our results demonstrate the relation of genetic distance estimated by AFLP marker analysis of hybridization partners with cross-compatibility of Kalanchoe species. At the same time, differences in ploidy did not influence the success of interspecific crosses. Conclusions: Our study presents the first comprehensive analysis of hybridization barriers occurring within Kalanchoe genus. Reproductive barriers were detected on both, pre- and post-fertilization levels. This new knowledge will contribute to further understanding of reproductive isolation of Kalanchoe species and facilitate breeding of new cultivars. For the first time, interspecific hybrids between K. nyikae as maternal plant and K. blossfeldiana as well as K. blossfeldiana and K. marnieriana were generated.

Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting

Background: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), developed by Saaty in the late 1970s, is one of the methods for multi-criteria decision making. The AHP disaggregates a complex decision problem into different hierarchical levels. The weight for each criterion and alternative are judged in pairwise comparisons and priorities are calculated by the Eigenvector method. The slowly increasing application of the AHP was the motivation for this study to explore the current state of its methodology in the healthcare context. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted by searching the Pubmed and Web of Science databases for articles with the following keywords in their titles or abstracts: "Analytic Hierarchy Process," "Analytical Hierarchy Process," "multi-criteria decision analysis," "multiple criteria decision," "stated preference," and "pairwise comparison." In addition, we developed reporting criteria to indicate whether the authors reported important aspects and evaluated the resulting studies' reporting. Results: The systematic review resulted in 121 articles. The number of studies applying AHP has increased since 2005. Most studies were from Asia (almost 30 %), followed by the US (25.6 %). On average, the studies used 19.64 criteria throughout their hierarchical levels. Furthermore, we restricted a detailed analysis to those articles published within the last 5 years (n = 69). The mean of participants in these studies were 109, whereas we identified major differences in how the surveys were conducted. The evaluation of reporting showed that the mean of reported elements was about 6.75 out of 10. Thus, 12 out of 69 studies reported less than half of the criteria. Conclusion: The AHP has been applied inconsistently in healthcare research. A minority of studies described all the relevant aspects. Thus, the statements in this review may be biased, as they are restricted to the information available in the papers. Hence, further research is required to discover who should be interviewed and how, how inconsistent answers should be dealt with, and how the outcome and stability of the results should be presented. In addition, we need new insights to determine which target group can best handle the challenges of the AHP. © 2015 Schmidt et al.