Scratch Wound Assay
Scratch Wound Cell Migration Assay · Also known as: wound healing assay, gap closure assay, migration assay
The scratch wound assay (also called the wound healing assay or gap closure assay) is a simple, cost-effective method for measuring cell migration in vitro. Developed and standardized by Liang, Park, and Guan in 2007, the assay involves creating a defined gap (wound) in a monolayer of confluent cells using a pipette tip or specialized tool, then monitoring the rate at which cells migrate into the gap over hours to days. The scratch wound assay is widely used to evaluate the effects of growth factors, inhibitory compounds, and biomaterial extracts on cell motility and wound healing potential.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
The scratch wound assay is ideal for rapid screening of compounds or conditions that affect cell migration, assessing the pro-migratory effects of growth factors (FGF, HGF, EGF), evaluating the wound healing potential of biomaterial extracts, and studying how cell migration changes in response to scaffolds or coatings. It is preferred for exploratory studies and high-throughput screening due to its low cost and simplicity. However, the assay has limitations: it does not distinguish migration from proliferation (gap closure can result from either), it measures only 2D migration (not 3D), and the initial mechanical trauma of scratching can trigger signaling cascades unrelated to the test treatment. For more rigorous studies, combine the scratch assay with complementary methods such as transwell migration assays or live-cell imaging.
Strengths & limitations
- Simple and cost-effective: requires only a pipette tip and tissue culture microscope; no special reagents or equipment.
- Rapid: gap closure can be observed within hours to days, enabling quick evaluation of treatment effects.
- Quantitative: automated image analysis provides objective measurements of migration rates with minimal operator bias.
- Physiologically relevant: measures cell migration under conditions mimicking wound closure in vivo.
- Multiplexable: multiple wells can be scratched and monitored in parallel, enabling high-throughput screening.
- Conflates migration and proliferation: gap closure results from both cell movement and division; active proliferation during the assay complicates interpretation.
- 2D only: does not assess migration through 3D matrices or in complex tissue architectures.
- Mechanical stress: the scratching procedure causes mechanical damage and release of cell contents, triggering stress responses unrelated to the test treatment.
- Heterogeneous cell response: cells at the wound edge may differ in phenotype and behavior from bulk population, potentially biasing results.
Frequently asked
Should I use a specialized wound-making tool or just a pipette tip?
Specialized tools (IncuCyte WoundMaker, Biosis wound maker) provide more consistent wound dimensions and edge definition, improving reproducibility. However, a standard P10 or P200 pipette tip is acceptable for exploratory studies if used consistently. For publication and regulatory studies, use a standardized tool and document the method clearly.
How do I distinguish the contribution of migration versus proliferation to gap closure?
Use a mitotic inhibitor (mitomycin C at 10 µg/mL for 30 minutes before scratch, or nocodazole) to block cell division while preserving migration. Compare gap closure rates with and without the inhibitor; the difference reflects the proliferation contribution. Alternatively, count nuclei in the wound region using fluorescence microscopy.
What is the best timeframe for monitoring gap closure?
For most cell types, monitoring for 12–24 hours captures sufficient closure without complete gap healing, maintaining a linear phase of closure. Fast-migrating cells may close the gap within 4–8 hours, while slow cells may require 48 hours. Optimize the timeframe for your cell type and condition by conducting a preliminary kinetic study.
Can I perform scratch assays on cells cultured on biomaterial scaffolds?
Scratch assays on opaque or 3D scaffolds are challenging because the wound edge is not clearly visible. For 2D films or coatings, use similar protocols to standard culture. For 3D scaffolds, consider alternative assays such as invasion assays in Transwell chambers or time-lapse confocal imaging of migration within the matrix.
Should I change the media after scratching, or leave the initial media?
Standard protocols include a gentle PBS rinse after scratching to remove detached cells, then addition of fresh media (with or without serum, depending on study design). Do not aggressively wash, as this can enlarge the wound and release additional cellular material, confounding results.
Sources
- Liang, C. C., Park, A. Y., & Guan, J. L. (2007). In vitro scratch assay: a convenient and inexpensive method for analysis of cell migration in vitro. Nature Protocols, 2(2), 329-333. DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2007.30 ↗
- Jonkman, J. E. N., Cathcart, J. A., Xu, F., et al. (2014). An introduction to the wound healing assay using live-cell microscopy. Cell Adhesion & Migration, 8(5), 440-451. DOI: 10.4161/cam.36224 ↗
- Rodriguez, L. G., Wu, X., & Guan, J. L. (2009). Wound-healing assay. In Cell Migration: Developmental Methods and Protocols. Humana Press, pp. 23-29. DOI: 10.1385/1-59259-860-9:023 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Scratch Wound Cell Migration Assay. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/biomaterials/scratch-wound-assay
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- BMP ReleaseBiomaterials↔ compare
- Live/Dead AssayBiomaterials↔ compare
- MTT/MTS AssayBiomaterials↔ compare
- Transwell AssayBiomaterials↔ compare