Arı Ürünlerinin MDA-MB-231 Meme Kanseri Modelinde Sitotoksik ve Metastatik Etkileri: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, Kırşehir yöresine ait propolis, arı sütü, arı ekmeği ve arı zehri olmak üzere dört temel arı ürününün MDA-MB-231 üçlü negatif meme kanseri hücre hattı üzerindeki sitotoksik ve anti-metastatik etkilerini karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. 

Araçlar ve Yöntem: Hücre canlılığı XTT testi ile, hücre göçü ve invazyon yetenekleri ise yara iyileşme ve invazyon analizleriyle değerlendirilmiştir. Propolis, arı sütü, arı ekmeği ve arı zehri için IC₅₀ değerleri belirlenmiş, bu değerlerde uygulama yapılmıştır. Görüntü analizleri ImageJ yazılımı ile, istatistiksel analizler ise SPSS 29 ve GraphPad Prism 8 kullanılarak yapılmıştır. 

Bulgular: XTT sonuçları, tüm arı ürünlerinin konsantrasyona bağlı olarak hücre proliferasyonunu baskıladığını göstermiştir. Propolis (IC₅₀: 40 µg/mL) ve arı zehri (IC₅₀: 4,5 µg/mL) en güçlü sitotoksisiteyi sergilemiştir. Arı ekmeğinin IC₅₀ değeri 195 µg/mL, arı sütünün ise 426 µg/mL olarak bulunmuştur. Yara iyileşme analizlerine göre, 48. saatten itibaren propolis, arı zehri ve arı ekmeği uygulanan gruplarda hücre göçü istatistiksel olarak anlamlı şekilde azalmıştır (p<0,001; tüm gruplar için). Buna karşılık, arı sütü uygulanan grupta anlamlı bir değişim gözlenmemiştir (p=0,121). Benzer şekilde, invazyon analizlerinde propolis (p=0,001) matriks bariyerini aşma kapasitesini anlamlı şekilde azaltmış, arı zehri (p<0,001) ve arı ekmeği (p=0,041) de anlamlı anti-invaziv etkiler göstermiştir. 

Sonuç: Bulgularımız, incelenen arı ürünleri arasında propolis ve arı zehrinin, hücre göçü ve invazyonunu inhibe etmede en yüksek etkinliğe sahip ajanlar olduğunu göstermektedir. Arı ürünleri MDA-MB-231 hücreleri üzerinde antikanser etkiler sergilemekte olup, bu bileşenler tamamlayıcı terapötik ajanlar olarak değerlendirilebilir. Ancak bulguların doğrulanabilmesi ve altta yatan mekanizmaların ayrıntılı anlaşılabilmesi için ileri düzey preklinik ve klinik çalışmalara ihtiyaç vardır.

Keywords

• Arı ekmeği
• arı sütü
• arı zehri
• meme kanseri
• propolis

Cytotoxic and Metastatic Effects of Bee Products in the MDA-MB-231 Breast Cancer Model: A Comparative Study

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the cytotoxic and anti-metastatic effects of four bee products—propolis, royal jelly, bee bread, and bee venom—obtained from the Kırşehir region on the MDA-MB-231 triple-negative breast cancer cell line. 

Materials and Methods: Cell viability was assessed using the XTT assay, while migration and invasion were evaluated by wound healing and invasion assays. IC₅₀ values were determined for each bee product, and treatments were applied at these concentrations under controlled experimental conditions. Image analysis was performed using ImageJ software, and statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 29 and GraphPad Prism 8 software packages. 

Results: All bee products suppressed cell proliferation in a dose-dependent manner. Propolis (IC₅₀: 40 µg/mL) and bee venom (IC₅₀: 4.5 µg/mL) showed the strongest cytotoxicity, whereas bee bread and royal jelly exhibited IC₅₀ values of 195 µg/mL and 426 µg/mL, respectively. Wound healing assays demonstrated that cell migration was significantly reduced in propolis, bee venom, and bee bread groups after 48 hours (p<0.001 for all groups), while no significant change was observed with royal jelly (p=0.121). In invasion assays, propolis significantly reduced matrix penetration (p=0.001), and bee venom (p<0.001) and bee bread (p=0.041) also demonstrated significant anti-invasive effects. 

Conclusion: Propolis and bee venom were the most effective agents in inhibiting cell migration and invasion. Bee products exhibit notable anticancer potential in MDA-MB-231 cells and may serve as promising complementary therapeutic agents. Further comprehensive studies are required to confirm these findings and elucidate the underlying molecular mechanisms in detail.

Keywords

• Bee Bread
• bee venom
• breast cancer
• propolis
• royal jelly

References

1. 1. Giaquinto AN, Sung H, Newman LA, et al. Breast cancer statistics 2024. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(6):477–495. doi: 10.3322/caac.21863
2. 2. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660
3. 3. T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı. Kanser İstatistikleri 2020. https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/kanser-istatistikleri. Erişim tarihi: 5 Mayıs 2025.
4. 4. Admoun C, Mayrovitz HN. The etiology of breast cancer. In: Mayrovitz HN, ed. Breast Cancer [Internet]. Brisbane (AU): Exon Publications; August 6, 2022. Chapter 2. PMID: 36122154. doi: 10.36255/exon-publications-breast-cancer-etiology
5. 5. Obeagu EI, Obeagu GU. Breast cancer: A review of risk factors and diagnosis. Medicine. 2024;103(3):e36905. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000036905
6. 6. Gradishar WJ, Moran MS, Abraham J, et al. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Breast Cancer, Version 4.2023. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2023;21(6):594–608. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0031
7. 7. Grinn-Gofroń A, Kołodziejczak M, Hrynkiewicz R, et al. Antimicrobial potential of bee-derived products: insights into honey, propolis and bee venom. Pathogens. 2025;14(8):780. doi: 10.3390/pathogens14080780
8. 8. Sadek KM, Shib NA, Taher ES, et al. Harnessing the power of bee venom for therapeutic and regenerative medical applications: an updated review. Front Pharmacol. 2024;15. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1412245

9. 9. Sawicka D, Car H, Borawska MH, Nikliński J. The anticancer activity of propolis. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2012;50(1):25–37. doi: 10.2478/18693
10. 10. Zulhendri F, Chandrasekaran K, Kowacz M, et al. Antiviral, antibacterial, antifungal, and antiparasitic properties of propolis: A review. Foods. 2021;10(6). doi: 10.3390/foods10061360
11. 11. Botezan S, Baci GM, Bagameri L, Pașca C, Dezmirean DS. Current status of the bioactive properties of royal jelly: A comprehensive review. Molecules. 2023;28(3):1510. doi: 10.3390/molecules28031510
12. 12. Kumar R, Thakur A, Kumar S, Hajam YA. Royal jelly as a promising therapeutic intervention: A systematic review. Heliyon. 2024;10(17):e37138. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37138
13. 13. Bakour M, Laaroussi H, Ousaaid D, et al. Bee bread as a source of bioactive molecules: An up-to-date review. Antibiotics. 2022;11(2). doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11020203
14. 14. Gülbaz G, Akbaba GB, Öztürkkan FE. Assessment of chemical composition and in vitro and in silico anticarcinogenic activity of bee bread samples from Eastern Anatolia (Kars). Eur Food Res Technol. 2025;251:899-914. doi: 10.1007/s00217-025-04679-0
15. 15. Shi P, Xie S, Yang J, et al. Pharmacological effects of bee venom: Recent progress. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:1001553. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1001553
16. 16. Stela M, Cichon N, Spławska A, Szyposzynska M, Bijak M. Bee venom therapy: A comprehensive review. Pharmaceuticals. 2024;17(9):1211. doi: 10.3390/ph17091211
17. 17. Pinto MP, Muñoz-Medel M, Retamal IN, et al. Differentially expressed genes and signaling pathways potentially involved in primary resistance to chemo-immunotherapy in advanced-stage gastric cancer patients. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(1):1. doi: 10.3390/ijms24010001
18. 18. Cui Z, Zhou Z, Sun Z, et al. Melittin and phospholipase A2 as anticancer agents. Biomed Pharmacother. 2024;179:117385. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117385
19. 19. Lv D, Hu Z, Lu L, Lu H, Xu X. Three-dimensional cell culture in tumor research. Oncol Lett. 2017;14(6):6999–7010. doi: 10.3892/ol.2017.7134
20. 20. Gallardo-Villagrán M, Paulus L, Leger DY, Therrien B, Liagre B. Dimethyl sulfoxide: a bio-friendly or bio-hazard chemical? The effect of DMSO in human fibroblast-like synoviocytes. Molecules. 2022;27(14). doi: 10.3390/molecules27144472
21. 21. Chourmouziadi Laleni N, Gomes PDC, Gkatzionis K, Spyropoulos F. Propolis particles incorporated in aqueous formulations with enhanced antibacterial performance. Food Hydrocoll Health. 2021;1:100040. doi: 10.1016/j.fhfh.2021.100040
22. 22. Shaw LM. Tumor cell invasion assays. In: Cell Migration: Developmental Methods and Protocols. 2005:97–105. doi: 10.1385/1-59259-860-9:097
23. 23. Capes-Davis A, Freshney RI, Geraghty RJ, Nims RW. Freshney's culture of animal cells : a manual of basic technique and specialized applications. Eighth edition. ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell; 2021.
24. 24. Grada A, Otero-Vinas M, Prieto-Castrillo F, Obagi Z, Falanga V. Research techniques made simple: analysis of collective cell migration using the wound healing assay. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137(2):e11-e16. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2016.11.020
25. 25. Kustiawan P, Phuwapraisirisan P, Puthong S, et al. Propolis from Trigona incisa induces apoptosis in cancer cells. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(15):6581–6589. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.15.6581
26. 26. Sharkawi FZE, Saleh S, El Sayed AFM. Potential anticancer activity of snake venom, bee venom and their components in liver and breast carcinoma. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2015;6(8):3224-3235. doi: 10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232
27. 27. Sivri NS, Tetikoğlu S, Kolayli S, Farooqi AA, Çelik Uzuner S. Anti-metastatic effects of bee venom and melittin in breast cancer cells by upregulation of BRMS1 and DRG1 genes. Chem Biol Drug Des. 2024;104(4):e14637. doi: 10.1111/cbdd.14637
28. 28. Fadzilah NH, Wan Omar WA. Therapeutic evaluation of ethanolic bee pollen extract from Malaysian stingless bee in MCF-7 and MCF-10A cell lines. Pertanika J Trop Agric Sci. 2023;46(1). doi: 10.47836/pjtas.46.1.03
29. 29. Arslan HS, Yalçın Azarkan S, Turna Saltoğlu G. Cytotoxic and metastatic effects of Anatolian propolis and chemotherapeutic agents (DOX, TAM, CLB) in 2D and 3D breast cancer models. J Apither Nat. 2025;8(1):103-127. doi: 10.35206/jan.1639903
30. 30. Li J, Liu H, Liu X, Hao S, Zhang Z, Xuan H. Chinese poplar propolis inhibits MDA-MB-231 cell proliferation in an inflammatory microenvironment by targeting enzymes of the glycolytic pathway. J Immunol Res. 2021;2021:6641341. doi: 10.1155/2021/6641341
31. 31. Premratanachai P, Chanchao C. Review of the anticancer activities of bee products. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2014;4(5):337-344. doi: 10.12980/apjtb.4.2014c1262
32. 32. Duffy C, Sorolla A, Wang E, et al. Honeybee venom and melittin suppress growth factor receptor activation in HER2-enriched and triple-negative breast cancer. npj Precis Oncol. 2020;4(1):24. doi: 10.1038/s41698-020-00129-0
33. 33. Wu J, Omene C, Karkoszka J, et al. Caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE), derived from a honeybee product propolis, exhibits a diversity of anti-tumor effects in pre-clinical models of human breast cancer. Cancer Lett. 2011;308(1):43-53. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2011.04.012
34. 34. Mishima S, Suzuki KM, Isohama Y, et al. Royal jelly has estrogenic effects in vitro and in vivo. J Ethnopharmacol. 2005;101(1-3):215-220. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2005.04.012
35. 35. Nakaya M, Onda H, Sasaki K, Yukiyoshi A, Tachibana H, Yamada K. Effect of royal jelly on bisphenol A-induced proliferation of human breast cancer cells. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2007;71:253-255. doi: 10.1271/bbb.60453