Reproducibility of scratch assays is affected by the initial degree of confluence: Experiments, modelling and model selection
Abstract
Scratch assays are difficult to reproduce. Here we identify a previously overlooked source of variability which could partially explain this difficulty. We analyse a suite of scratch assays in which we vary the initial degree of confluence (initial cell density). Our results indicate that the rate of re-colonisation is very sensitive to the initial density. To quantify the relative roles of cell migration and proliferation, we calibrate the solution of the Fisher-Kolmogorov model to cell density profiles to provide estimates of the cell diffusivity, D, and the cell proliferation rate, λ. This procedure indicates that the estimates of D and λ are very sensitive to the initial density. This dependence suggests that the Fisher-Kolmogorov model does not accurately represent the details of the collective cell spreading process, since this model assumes that D and λ are constants that ought to be independent of the initial density. Since higher initial cell density leads to enhanced spreading, we also calibrate the solution of the Porous-Fisher model to the data as this model assumes that the cell flux is an increasing function of the cell density. Estimates of D and λ associated with the Porous-Fisher model are less sensitive to the initial density, suggesting that the Porous-Fisher model provides a better description of the experiments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
By estimating parameters for these models, past work has helped identify quantitative effects of biological perturbations in scratch assays.
“By estimating parameters for these models, past work has helped identify quantitative effects of biological perturbations in scratch assays8,10,11.”
From Inference of weak-form partial differential equations describing migration and proliferation mechanisms in wound healing experiments on cancer cells (2025) · cites this paper as [11]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 107
- Authors
- Jin, W., Shah, E. T., Penington, C. J., McCue, S. W., Chopin, L. K., & Simpson, M. J.
- Affiliations
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Translational Research Institute (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Simpson, Matthew J.
- Venue
- Journal of Theoretical Biology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-02
- Volume
- 390
- Pages
- 136-145
- ISSN
- 0022-5193 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2285581648
- Cited by
- 107
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5
- FWCI
- 8.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Theoretical Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council (DP140100249, FT130100148)
- National Health and Research Council
- Movember Foundation
- Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › Mathematical Biology Tumor Growth
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Cellular Mechanics and Interactions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
- Keywords
- scratch assay, reproducibility, cell confluence, initial cell density, cell migration, cell proliferation, model calibration, model selection
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Biological Assay, Cell Count, Cell Movement, Humans, Models, Biological, Stress, Mechanical, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Cell Line, Tumor, Cell Proliferation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review