{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03754439370877727, 'fraction_numerical': 0.030441400304414, 'mean_word_length': 4.6022727272727275, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
ANALYSIS OF THE GROWTH KINETICS OF A HUMAN LYMPHOMA CELL LINE

The growth kinetics of an established human lymphoma cell line were analyzed by a variety of techniques utilizing various cell inocula (5 x 104 ‐ 5 x 105 cells) dispensed into 60 mm diameter dishes. Techniques included pulse‐labeled mitosis (PLM), continuous labeling with 3H‐TdR, time‐lapse photography (TLP), cell counts by electronic particle counter, and DNA histography obtained by pulse cytophotometry (PCP). There were no significant differences among values determined for any kinetic parameters as a function of cell concentration. the average doubling time of exponentially growing cells, regardless of cell inoculum, was 44.1 hr. the generation time determined by PLM was 31.1 hr with a SD of 4.7 hr. Transit times for each stage were: TG1= 10.6 hr, Ts= 9.9 hr, TG2= 9.9 hr, and Tm= 0.7 hr. Repeated experiments using continuous labeling with 3H‐TdR demonstrated a TG2 of 6.3 hr. the longer value determined by PLM is possibly due to the technical manipulations of this procedure which may delay pulse‐labeled cells from resuming cell cycle transit. Hence, values for cell cycle stages were recalculated to give TG1= 14.1 hr, Ts= 9.9 hr, TG2 = 6.3 hr, and Tm= 0.7 hr. These results were used to compute the size of each cell cycle stage compartment pool and corresponded very closely to values defined directly by PCP. TLP analysis considered only cells that produced colonies of at least thirty‐two cells. Generation times ranged from 8 to 89 hr and showed a positive skewness. the average value measured for 330 divisions was 34.5 hr with a SD of 13.2 hr. Thus, the variance predicted by curve fitting of the PLM data did not correlate with that defined by time‐lapse photography nor did it encompass the range in generation times observed directly by TLP. There was a positive correlation between sister‐sister cell generation times (+0.66) but no relation was noted for mother‐daughter values.