## 3 Results and Discussion
### Viability and Cell Migration Assays  
In order to determine the cytotoxicity of tested honeydew honey samples on human normal fibroblasts (BJ) and human breast cancer cells (MCF-7), an MTT assay was performed. The choice of this model was the result of our previous work, in which we obtained  
Figure 1: Jack beans urease inhibitory activity of 20% solutions of tested honeys. H1, H2, H3, H4—honeydew honeys, R—rapeseed honey. The error bars represent the standard deviation. a,b,c—means marked with different letters are significantly different (_p_ < 0.05). evidence for the anticancer effect of propolis extracts [38]. The tested concentrations of all samples were 0.1%, 1%, and 10% [\(w/v\)]. This test revealed that all samples after 48 h of incubation showed no cytotoxic effect against normal fibroblasts and breast cancer cells. It was already described that honey is not toxic against normal cells; however, several studies indicate its highly cytotoxic effect on tumor or cancer cells [60]. The differences in the obtained results are related to the enormous diversity in the composition of honey samples from different habitats and sources, as well as the methods used for their storage and sample preparation. To evaluate the \"wound-healing\" activity of the samples, BJ and MCF-7 cells were subjected to a migration scratch assay. The effect of individual honey samples on the migration of normal and cancer cells was compared to the control migration of untreated cells. Based on the obtained microscopic images, the evolution of the gap created in the confluent cell monolayer in the presence of the samples was evaluated (Figures 2-4). The quantification of the cell-free area was performed using ImageJ public domain software and data are expressed as the mean \(\pm\) SE (Figures 2 and 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Bacterial** \\ **Strain** \\ \end{tabular} } & \begin{tabular}{c} _Escherichia_ \\ _coli_ \\ **ATCC 10536** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} _Klebsiella_ \\ _pneumonia_ \\ **ATCC 13883** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} _Listeria_ \\ _monocytogenes_ \\ **SLR 2249** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} _Staphylococcus_ \\ _nureus_ \\ **ATCC 6538** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} _Stapylococcus_ \\ _epidemitis_ \\ **ATCC 35984** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} _Streptococcus_ \\ _agalacliae_ \\ **DSM 2134** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} _Streptococcus_ \\ _pyogenes_ \\ **DSM 20565** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{MIC/MBC [\% \& _w/v_]} \\ \hline H1 & ND/ND & 12.5/25.0 & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & 50.0/ND \\ H2 & ND/ND & 25.0/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & 25.0/ND \\ H3 & ND/ND & 12.5/25.0 & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & 50.0/50.0 & 50.0/ND \\ H4 & ND/ND & 12.5/25.0 & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & 50.0/50.0 & 25.0/50.0 \\ R & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND & ND/ND \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Antibacterial properties of honeybee and rapeseed honeys from Podkarpackie Province. Figure 2: Effect of honeybee honey treatment on breast cancer cells (MCF-7). The scratch wound area was measured 12 and 24 h post-treatment. The error bars present the standard deviation. Statistically significant differences between treated samples and untreated control are shown as follows: * \(p<0.05\), **\(p<0.001\), *** \(p<0.0005\), and *** \(p<0.0001\). Figure 4: Scratch assay to investigate the wound healing properties of tested honeys in 1% concentration on breast cancer cells (MCF-7). The area of the scratch was measured at 0, 12, and 24 h after the treatment. Figure 3: Effect of honeybee honey treatment on normal fibroblasts (B)). The scratch wound area was assessed at 12, 24, 40, and 64 h post-treatment. Statistically significant differences between treated samples and untreated control are shown as follows: * \(p<0.05\), ** \(p<0.001\).