Cited by 107Mathematical Biology Tumor GrowthCellular Mechanics and InteractionsMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models

Reproducibility of scratch assays is affected by the initial degree of confluence: Experiments, modelling and model selection

Jin, Wang, Shah, Esha T., Penington, Catherine J., McCue, Scott W., Chopin, Lisa K., Simpson, Matthew J.·2016·Journal of Theoretical Biology

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.10.040

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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