Back

InVitroGap: an open-source tool for automated quantification of wound closure in the in vitro scratch assay

ARYA, R. K.; Sindhani, M.; Dewala, S. R.; Weight, C. J.; Bukavina, L.

2026-06-24 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.06.19.733445 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundScratch assays are widely used to study wound closure in vitro, but quantitative image analysis remains constrained by manual variability, proprietary workflows, and tools requiring programming expertise. We developed InVitroGap, a Python-based application with a browser-accessible interface for automated quantification of scratch assay closure from sequential microscopy images. MethodsRCC-ER and Renca cells were seeded in 96-well ImageLock plates and scratched using a WoundMaker device for uniform linear wounds or a 200 {micro}L pipette tip for crisscross wounds. Phase-contrast time-lapse images acquired at 0, 24, and 48 h with an IncuCyte SX5 system were independently analyzed using IncuCyte 2023A Rev2 and InVitroGap. The InVitroGap pipeline combines Gaussian smoothing, gradient-based texture mapping, adaptive percentile thresholding, and morphological post-processing to quantify wound confluence and relative wound density (RWD). Agreement was evaluated using paired comparisons, Pearson and Spearman correlations, Bland-Altman analysis, and mean absolute error (MAE). ResultsInVitroGap measurements closely tracked IncuCyte outputs across both cell lines, with no significant between-method differences (p > 0.05), strong pooled correlations (R{superscript 2} = 0.964 for RWD; R{superscript 2} = 0.983 for wound confluence), and small mean biases (absolute bias [≤] 1.64%). The tool successfully processed crisscross wounds from brightfield image series, and a complete four-timepoint series was analyzed in approximately 10 seconds, with robust performance across distinct cell morphologies and wound geometries. ConclusionsInVitroGap provides a transparent, computationally efficient, and platform-independent alternative for scratch assay analysis, delivering performance comparable to commercial systems while remaining freely accessible at https://invitrogap.vercel.app/. HighlightsO_LIOpen-source Python tool for automated, platform-independent in vitro scratch assay analysis C_LIO_LITexture-based adaptive pipelines enable robust wound segmentation across cell types C_LIO_LIQuantifies wound confluence and relative wound density from time-lapse images C_LIO_LIStrong agreement with IncuCyte measurements in the tested datasets C_LI

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 2%
13.5%
2
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.2%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.2%
4
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.4%
5
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 6%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 15%
5.6%
7
Journal of Cell Science
393 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
8
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
9
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
10
Journal of Microscopy
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
11
Biological Imaging
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
12
Biomedical Optics Express
95 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
13
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.5%
14
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
15
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
122 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
16
Frontiers in Immunology
638 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.2%
17
Biomolecules
100 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
18
Bioinformatics Advances
203 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
19
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 55%
0.9%
20
BMC Biology
265 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
21
Biology Open
156 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
22
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.9%
23
BMC Methods
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
24
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
25
SLAS Discovery
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
26
Nature Methods
385 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%