Skip to main content
. 2013 Jun 26;8(6):e67316. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067316

Figure 2. Evidence for clonal dominance: comparison of the distributions of HCT-116 barcoded clones and cells by clone size category in vitro and in vivo .

Figure 2

For each graph, the number of independent clones (blue bars) or the total aggregate number of cells (orange bars) is plotted for each clone size category across the X axis. (A) Distribution of HCT-116 barcodes in vitro: 80% of the barcodes (clones) were identified in categories “128–255” to “2048–4095”, indicating that 80% of the cells divided between 7 and 12 times; 95% of the cells were identified in categories “128–255” to “2048–4095”, indicating that 95% of the cells belong to clones derived from 80% of the originally transduced cells, which divided between 7 and 12 times. Scale for number of cells was adjusted 500 fold to allow side by side comparisons of clone numbers and cell numbers. (B) Distribution of HCT-116 barcodes in vivo: 75% of the barcodes are found in categories “missing” to “2–3”, indicating that they either didn’t survive at all, didn’t divide, or divided no more than once and represented only 1% of the retrieved tagged cells. However, only 6% of the bar-codes were located in categories “64–127” to “16384–32767”, indicating that they divided between 6 and 14 times; 95% of the cells accrued in categories “64–127” to “16384–32767”, indicating that 95% of the tagged cells are derived from 6% of the initially barcoded clones that divided the most. Scale for number of cells was adjusted 25 fold to allow side by side comparisons of clone numbers and cell numbers.