Back

Cytomove: a browser-local and reviewable workflow for scratch wound healing assay quantification

Duzgun, Z.

2026-06-10 cell biology
10.64898/2026.06.06.730617 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The in vitro scratch wound healing assay is one of the most widely used methods for studying collective cell migration, but converting assay images into reproducible measurements remains a practical bottleneck of manual tracing, local software installation, parameter bookkeeping, and limited visibility into how the wound region was segmented. We present Cytomove, a browser-local software tool for reviewable scratch wound healing assay quantification. Cytomove imports local microscopy images, segments the wound region with an explainable variance-and-threshold pipeline implemented in client-side JavaScript without external image-processing dependencies, displays the segmentation as an inspectable overlay before any number is exported, supports single-image and grouped time-course analysis, and exports wound area, wound area fraction, wound width profile statistics, quality-control labels, and full analysis metadata as CSV, Excel, PNG, and ZIP. All processing runs in the browser or in a desktop package built on the same code; microscopy images never leave the users machine. In a preliminary comparison with the ImageJ/Fiji Wound Healing Size Tool (WHST) across five image sets and 31 paired measurements, Cytomove reproduced wound-area behaviour closely in a clean brightfield comparator sequence (mean absolute percentage error 4.1%, Pearson r = 0.9975) and in a phase-contrast time course approaching closure (median area error 6.6%, r = 0.9984), while surfacing near-closure and real-world acquisition difficulties through overlays and quality-control labels. Informal local testing indicates that typical single-image analysis completes within seconds in a modern browser, with no installation or dependency step. Cytomove lowers installation friction, keeps assay data local, and links every exported number to the segmentation image and parameters that produced it.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Wellcome Open Research
67 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.7%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 22%
7.8%
3
Nature Methods
385 papers in training set
Top 2%
6.6%
4
Journal of Microscopy
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
5
Journal of Cell Science
393 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.4%
6
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.4%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 17%
5.4%
8
Journal of Cell Biology
392 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
4.2%
10
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
11
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.7%
12
Biology Open
156 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.6%
13
Cell Reports Methods
165 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
14
Molecular Biology of the Cell
311 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
15
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 9%
2.3%
16
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.1%
17
Biological Imaging
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
18
Nature Protocols
33 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
19
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
176 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
20
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.5%
21
Current Protocols
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
22
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.3%
23
BMC Methods
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
24
SoftwareX
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
25
STAR Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
26
Life Science Alliance
285 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%
27
Patterns
78 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
28
Cytometry Part A
33 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%