Cumin extracts analysis
Total phenolic, flavonoid and proanthocyanidin content of the 70% (acetonic, ethanolic and methanolic) cumin extracts are summarized in Table 1. The total polyphenol contents (TPC) are in the range of 30±4.01 to 42±3.46 mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/g dry weight (DW), the highest TPC was obtained with 70% acetone. The total flavonoids contents in cumin extract ranged from 14.09±0.8 to 24.49±1.24 mg quercetin equivalent (QE) /g DW. The amount of flavonoids in acetonic extract was highest, whereas methanolic extract had the lowest amount. Proanthocyanidin are ranged from 25.15±0.73 to 34.95±8.71 mg CE/g, the highest level of these condensed tannins was observed with each of the acetonic and ethanolic extracts, followed by methanolic extract.This result is in line with those obtained with (
Bettaieb et al., 2012), acetonic extract at 80% gave a better performance in polyphenols in comparison with ethanolic and methanolic extracts. Another study found a higher content of polyphenols with the methanolic extract (35.5 mg EAG/g MS) (
El-ghorab et al., 2007), which is slightly higher than our found result (30±4.01 EAG/g MS).The difference in the yield of total phenols obtained from different plant extracts was mainly due to the difference in the nature of phenolic compounds obtained by each solvent used
(Ignat et al., 2011).
The HPLC anlysis of acetonic extract (data not shoun) resulted in the identification of several compounds, among which the most abundant was the p-coumaric acid as the major phenolic acid and diosmin as flavonoid, the apigenines was also detected in cumin extract.These results concur with earlier research, but to a different amounts
(Akroum et al., 2010; Bettaieb et al., 2012). Cuminaldehyde is present in high concentrations in the cumin extract (61.65%), Cumene, p-cymene, -pinene, acetic acid, p-cymen-7-ol and terpinene were among other constituents of the extract
(Amalia et al., 2019). Tashtoush et al., (2016) revealed the presence of gallic, vanillic and chlorogenic acides in cumin seeds.
Antioxidant activity
The proportion of DPPH-scavenging activity in cumin extracts was calculated and it was contrasted with a reference ascorbic acid. The mean ± standard deviation of twice replications are shown for the data. As seen in Fig 1, the antioxidant activity of phenolic compounds varied significantly depending on the investigated solvent. At the lowest concentration (25 µg/mL), DPPH radical scavenging activity of ethanolic (2, 6%) and acetonic (2, 25%) extracts was not significantly different, whereas no antiradical activity was observed for methanolic extracts. At the highest concentration (1000 µg/mL), scavenging activity were around 16.44%, 13.87% and 17.75% for acetonic, ethanolic and methanolic extracts respectively.
The plant extracts under investigation had EC
50 values that ranged from 940±42 µg/mL to 1180±123 µg/mL. Comparing the different extracts, the acetonic cumin extract’s EC
50 had the lowest value (Table 2). The total phenolic content, flavonoid content and antioxidant activity of the cumin extract are positively correlated in the current study. This is due to the fact that 70% acetonic extract, which also displayed the largest quantities of phenolics and flavonoids, demonstrated the best antioxidant capacity. Likewise, the levels of phenolics, flavonoids and antioxidant activity were lowest in the methanolic cumin extract.Other authors found EC
50 (6.24 µg/mL to 236 µg/mL) with acetonic extract (
Bettaieb et al., 2012) and (419.86±18.88 µg/mL) with ethanolic extract
(Tuekaew et al., 2014). Demir and Korukluoglu (2020) reported the EC
50 values of 1480 µg/mL for methanolic extract and 3250 µg/mL for ethanolic extract. The differences in results led to the conclusion that the antioxidant activity does not depend only on the high content of total phenolics but also on the phenolic composition, as well as solvent concentration and method of extraction
(Milica et al., 2016).
Antibacterial effect
In the present work, the mean zone of inhibition by cumin extracts against dental caries pathogens ranged from 12 mm to 17, 30 mm (Table 3). The three extracts of
C. cyminum showed antibacterial activity against Gram+ bacteria except
E. faecalis that has shown resistance to methanolic and ethanolic extracts (P<0.05). The Gram-bacteria were insensitive to cumin extracts (P<0.05). Acetonic extract caused the largest zone of inhibition, among the extracts tested and was the most effective against the four Gram+ bacteria.The results of the MIC assay suggest moderate antibacterial activity of the extracts that varied depending on the species of bacteria. Results show the highest values of CMBs with methanolic extract (≥200 mg/mL) (Table 4).
These results indicate that the Gram-positive microorganisms were more sensitive to the plant extracts studied than the Gram-negative microorganisms. However, controversial data have reported that cumin extract is effective against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria (
E. coli, S
. aeruginosa, S. aureus, S. flexneri, B. cereus, E. faecalis et
S. typhimurium). The higher susceptibility of the Gram-positive organisms to the plant extracts may be due to their cell wall structure, which is of a single layer while the gram-negative cell wall is a multi-layered structure and quite complex
(Nazzaro et al., 2013). Bactericid activity of
C. cyminum extracts was observed in all the strains, except
S. mutans for wich a bacteriostatic activity has been noted with the methanolic extract (data not shown). Recent results showed an inhibitory effect of cumin against
S. mutans and
S. pyogeneswith bactericide effect
(Ghazi et al., 2019), MIC and MBC values found were inferior to those obtained in this study
(Pillay et al., 2019). The cumin extract contains numerous active chemical compounds with antibacterial potency
(Patil et al., 2016).