INTRODUCTIONAccording to the International Diabetes Federationreport of 2017, approximately 425 million adultsbetween 20 and 79 years old suffered from diabetesworldwide. By 2045, this number will escalate to629 million. In 2017, India reported 72 946 400 casesof diabetes [1]. Type II diabetes patients showedhigher cancer risks, especially in the colorectal area.Association between these two diseases may resultfrom shared cellular and molecular pathways. Genomewideassociation studies also linked diabetes-associatedgenes (e.g., TCF7L2) to colorectal cancer [2, 3].Globally, colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonlydiagnosed type of cancer. The past five years have seen3.2 million prevalence rates. It means that 1.3 millionnew colorectal cancer cases are registered every year [4].According to Ayurvedic studies, food (Ahara inHindi) is the sustainer of life, which helps maintaingood health and protects human body from diseases [5].284Dhakshayani GM et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):283–294Herbs and spices are indispensable parts of humandiet. Since ancient times, herbs and spices have playeda vital role in the lifestyle of people. Not only do theyadd flavor to food, but they also possess valuablepreservative and medicinal properties because the biomoleculesin some plants maintain and promote humanhealth.In the past few decades, natural products havebecome more popular as an alternative therapy againstvarious diseases because conventional medicine oftencause unwanted side effects. As a result, modern sciencealso started exploring the medicinal properties ofspices [6, 7].Coriander (Coriandrum sativum), sometimes calledthe herb of happiness, is the most well-known culinaryspice worldwide and an age-old traditional medicine.C. sativum contains a wide range of phytochemicalelements, which makes it a promising functionalfood that protects from all kinds of lifestyle-relateddiseases. Indeed, coriander is known for its antioxidant,anticancer, neuroprotective, anticonvulsant, migrainerelieving,hypolipidemic, hypoglycemic, hypotensive,antimicrobial, anxiolytic, analgesic, and antiinflammatoryactivities [8].Mature coriander leaves have medicinalproperties, but new scientific data demonstrate thatcoriander microgreens contain higher amounts ofsuch phytonutrients as β-carotene, ascorbic acid,α-tocopherol, and phylloquinone, as well as minerals,e.g., Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, Se, and Mo. They also havelower nitrate content than mature leaves [9, 10].As a novel functional food, microgreens are tenderand immature leafy greens with developed cotyledonsand with or without partially emerged pair of the firsttrue leaves [10]. They are harvested for consumptionwithin 10 to 20 days of seedling emergence and arelarger than sprouts but younger than baby greens [11].They give vivid color, soft texture, and multifariousquality to the main dish, thus enhancing its aestheticappeal [12, 13]. Microgreens are a highly perishablefood with a very short shelf life of three to five days atambient temperature [14]. Microgreens can be easilygrown at home, in containers on a terrace, or in kitchengardens with minimal sunlight. In the present study,the microgreens were evaluated in vitro for antioxidant,antidiabetic, and anticancer properties, which werecompared with those of mature leaves.STUDY OBJECTS AND METHODSSample growth and preparation. Coriander(Coriandrum sativum) microgreens were grown underambient conditions using vermicompost enriched soil.A 50-g sample of coriander seeds (Chennai, India) wassown at an even depth of one inch (2.5 cm) in soil-filledplastic pots. After germination, the pots were hydratedthrice a day and exposed to ambient light. Coriandermicrogreens were harvested after seven or eight dayswhen they were three inches (7.5 cm) tall. The cotyledonstems were cut with sterile scissors as close to the soilsurface as possible. Coriander mature leaves weregrown under the same conditions as microgreens andharvested after 60 days. The roots and defected partswere removed, and the edible stems and leaves werecleaned from soil particles.Species identification. The species were identifiedwith the help of the faculty of Plant Biology and PlantBiotechnology, Women’s Christian College, Chennai.Preparation of extract. Mature leaves and microgreenswere washed three or four times with tap waterand then rinsed twice with de-ionized water. Afterthat, they were shade-dried at room temperature underconstant observation to avoid any contamination. Afterdrying, the leafy samples were crushed in an electricgrinder. The powdered samples were stored for furtheruse. Extraction was done by aqueous and ethanolicmethods.Aqueous extraction. Powdered mature leaves (10 g)and powdered microgreens (10 g) were put in separateconical flasks with 100 mL of de-ionized water. Thesamples were kept in a water bath at 90°C for 1 h andcooled at room temperature. Then, the extract wasfiltered with Whatman filter paper. The filtrate wascondensed in a hot plate at 50°C and stored at 4°C.Ethanolic extraction. Powdered mature leaves(10 g) and powdered microgreens (10 g) were soakedseparately in 100 mL of ethanol for 72 h. Thesupernatant was filtered with Whatman filter paper. Thefiltrate was condensed in a hot plate at 50°C.Phytochemical analysis. Qualitative phytochemicalscreening. The crude ethanolic and aqueousextracts of C. sativum microgreens and mature leaveswere subjected to a qualitative phytochemical analysis.They were tested using standard procedures for variousclasses of active phytoconstituents, such as alkaloids,terpenoids, glycosides, steroids, saponins, tannins,flavonoids, phenols, carbohydrates, and proteins [15–21].Quantitative phytochemical analysis. Estimationof total phenols. Total phenolic compounds in thecoriander samples were quantified by using a slightlymodified the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent method [22].During the procedure, 100 μL of extracts were mixedwith 900 μL of methanol and 1 mL of the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent (diluted with distilled water as 1:10).After 5 min, 1 mL of 20% (w/v) Na2CO3 solution wasadded. The reaction was incubated in the dark for 30min. A UV-Vis spectrophotometer measured the opticaldensity at 765 nm. The total phenolic content wasexpressed as (mg/g of sample) gallic acid equivalent.Estimation of total flavonoids. The aluminumchloride reagent method with slight modificationswas used to define the total flavonoid content in theC. sativum samples [23]. Each extract (500 μL) wasmixed with 500 μL of methanol and 500 μL of 5% (w/v)sodium nitrite solution followed by adding 500 μL of10% (w/v) aluminum chloride solution. After a 5-minincubation, 1 mL of 1M NaOH solution was added. Byadding distilled water, the total volume was brought up285Dhakshayani GM et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):283–294to 5 mL. Absorbances were measured at 510 nm, andthe results were expressed as (mg/g of sample) quercetinequivalent.Estimation of steroids. According to the proceduredescribed in [24], 1 mL of each extract was put in a10-mL volumetric flask. 4 N sulphuric acid (2 mL) and0.5% iron (III) chloride (2 mL) were added, followedby a 0.5% potassium hexacyanoferrate (III) solution(0.5 mL). The mix was heated at 70 ± 20°C in a waterbath for 30 min with occasional shaking. The totalvolume was diluted to the mark with distilled water.The optical density was measured at 780 nm against thereagent blank. The results were expressed as (mg/g ofsample) cholesterol equivalent.Estimation of total carbohydrates. The totalcarbohydrate content was measured by the Hedge andHofreiter method [25]. According to the procedure,0.5 mL of each extract was put in a separate test tube.The volume was brought up to 1 mL with distilledwater. After that, 4 mL of anthrone reagent was addedin each tube and mixed thoroughly. D-glucose wasused as standard. Blank was taken as distilled H2O andanthrone. The reaction mix was heated in a boilingwater bath for 8 min and cooled. The absorbance ofthe green color solution was tested at 630 nm using aUV-Vis spectrophotometer. The carbohydrate contentof the plant extract was calculated from the calibrationcurve of glucose, and the results were expressed as(mg/g of sample) glucose equivalent.Estimation of proteins (Bradford colorimetric assay).The Bradford protein assay described in [26] quantifiedthe total protein content in the C. sativum samples.According to the procedure, 0.5 mL of each extract wasput in a test tube and brought up to 1 mL with distilledwater. After that, 2 mL of Bradford’s reagent was addedin each tube and mixed thoroughly. Bovine serumalbumin served as standard. Blank was taken as distilledwater and Bradford’s reagent. The absorbance of the paleblue color solution was tested at 595 nm. The unknownconcentration of amino acids/protein in the coriandersamples was illustrated as a graph.Estimation of ascorbic acid. The ascorbic acidcontent in the fresh samples were estimated using the 2,6-dichlorophenol indophenol (DCPIP) titration methodaccording to the procedure previously described by Raoand Deshpande [27]. According to the procedure, 5 mLof the ascorbic acid working standard was pipetted intoa 100 mL conical flask together with 5 mL of 0.625%oxalic acid and titrated against the dye solution (V1).The endpoint was the appearance of a transient pinkcolor that persisted for a few minutes. After that, 5 mLof each test sample was similarly titrated against thedye solution. The ascorbic acid content, mg/100 g, wasdetermined using the following formula:(1)where 500 is the amount of standard ascorbic acid takenfor titration, μg; V1 is the volume of dye consumed by500 μg of standard ascorbic acid; V2 is the volume of dyeconsumed by 5 mL of each test sample; 25 is the totalvolume of extract; 100 is the ascorbic acid content per100 g of sample; 5 is the weight of fresh sample takenfor extraction; 5 is the volume of test sample taken fortitration.Estimation of chlorophylls and carotenoids usingacetone. During this procedure, 1 g of finely cut freshleaves was homogenized with 80% acetone. The masswas then centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 5 min. Afterthe supernatant was transferred, the procedure wasrepeated until the residue contained no trace of greencolor. The final volume was brought up to 100 mL in thevolumetric flask with 80% acetone. The optical densityof the extracted solution was measured at 480, 510, 645,and 663 nm. From these readings, concentrations ofchlorophylls and carotenoid pigment were determinedby using the following formulas given in Table 1.Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry(GC/MS). The aqueous extracts of C. sativummicrogreens and mature leaves underwent a GC/MSanalysis by using Agilent technologies 6890 N JEOLGC Mate II GC-MS model. The samples were injectedinto an HP-5 column (30 m×0.25 mm i.d with 0.25 μmfilm thickness). During the gas chromatography, heliumserved as the carrier gas, the flow rate was 1 mL/min,and the injector operated at 200°C. The column oventemperature was programmed as 50–250°C at a rate of10°C/min injection mode. The list of mass spectrometryPositive control optical Growth inhibition density Sample Positive control optical density−= % of -amylase enzyme inhibition Sample Control 100Sample−α = ×% of Fe3 reduction Sample Control 100Sample+ −= ×% of DPPH radical inhibition Control Sample 100Control−= ×% of DPPH radical inhibition Control Sample 100Control−= ×21Amount of ascorbic content 500 25 1005 5× × ×=× ×VV% Cell viability =100 − Percent growth inhibition% of -amylase enzyme inhibition Sample Control Sample−α = ×Table 1 Formulas for chlorophyll-a, chlorophyll-b, total chlorophyll, and carotenoid estimation [28–30]Chlorophyll-a, mg/g tissueChlorophyll-b, mg/g tissueTotal chlorophyll (TC), mg/g tissueCarotenoid, mg/g tissuewhere A is the absorbance at a specific wavelength (480, 510, 645, and 663 nm); V is the final volume of chlorophyll extract; W is the fresh weightof tissue extracted( ) ( ) 645 663 20.2 8.021000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 480 510 7.6 1.491000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 663 645 12.7 2.691000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 645 663 22.9 4.681000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 645 663 20.2 8.021000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 480 510 7.6 1.491000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 663 645 12.7 2.691000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 480 510 7.6 1.491000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 645 663 20.2 8.021000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 480 510 7.6 1.491000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 663 645 12.7 2.691000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 645 663 22.9 4.681000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 645 663 20.2 8.021000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 480 510 7.6 1.491000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 663 645 12.7 2.691000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 480 510 7.6 1.491000 − × ×   A A V W1000  ( ) ( ) 480 510 7.6 1.491000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 663 645 12.7 2.691000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 645 663 22.9 4.681000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 645 663 20.2 8.021000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 480 510 7.6 1.491000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 663 645 12.7 2.691000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 480 510 7.6 1.491000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 480 510 7.6 1.491000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 663 645 12.7 2.691000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 645 663 22.9 4.681000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 645 663 20.2 8.021000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 480 510 7.6 1.491000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 663 645 12.7 2.691000 − × ×   A A V W( ) ( ) 480 510 7.6 1.491000 − × ×   A A V W286Dhakshayani GM et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):283–294conditions included: ionization voltage – 70 eV; ionsource temperature – 250°C; interface temperature –250°C; mass range – 50–600 mass units. The resultswere compared using the spectrum of the knowncomponents stored in the National Institute Standardand Technology (NIST) library database [31].In vitro antioxidant assays. DPPH radicalscavenging assay. The antioxidant activity ofthe extracts was measured based on the stable (2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl-hydrate) DPPH free radicalscavenging method [32]. Various concentrations (50, 100,150, 200, 250, and 300 μg/mL) of C. sativum extracts(1 mL) were mixed with 0.1 mM of DPPH solution(1 mL) in methanol. The reaction was carried out intriplicate, and the decrease in absorbance was measuredat 517 nm after 30 min in the dark using a UV-Visspectrophotometer. Ascorbic acid served as the standardreference, while methanol (1 mL) with DPPH (1m L)solution served as control. The percentage of inhibitionwas calculated as follows:The procedure made it possible to determine thesample concentration required to inhibit 50% of theDPPH free radical (IC50).Ferric (Fe3+) reducing antioxidant power assay(FRAP). The reducing power of the extracts wasdetermined by the Fe3+ reduction method with slightmodification [33]. In brief, 1 mL of C. sativum extractsat different concentrations (50, 100, 150, 200, 250, and300 μg/mL) were taken in 1 mL of phosphate buffer(0.2 M, pH 6.6) in a test tube. After that, 1 mL ofpotassium ferricyanide [K3Fe(CN)6] (1% w/v) was added.After 30 min of incubation at 50°C in a water bath,1 mL of trichloroacetic acid (10 % w/v) was added toeach mix. Then, 1 mL of fresh FeCl3 (0.1% w/v) solutionwas poured in, and the absorbance was measured at 700nm in a UV-Vis spectrophotometer. The experimentwas replicated in three independent assays. Ascorbicacid was used as the standard reference. The reducingconcentration (RC50) of sample required to reduce thefree radicals (Fe3+) by 50 % was calculated to interpretthe FRAP results.The percentage of reduction was calculated asfollows:In vitro antidiabetic activity. α-amylaseenzyme inhibition assay. The α-amylase enzymeinhibition assay relied on the starch-iodine test [34].The coriander extracts at various concentrations (50,100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 μg/mL) were added toα-amylase enzyme (10 μL). The α-amylase enzymehad been prepared in 0.02 M sodium phosphate buffer(pH 6.9 containing 6 mM sodium chloride). Theprocedure was followed by 10 min of incubation at37°C. After pre-incubation, 500 μL of 1% soluble starchwas added to each reaction and incubated at 37°C for60 min.To stop the enzymatic reaction, 1 N HCl (100 μL)was added and followed by 200 μL of iodine reagent(5 mM I2 and 5 mM KI). The color change wasregistered, and the optical density was tested at595 nm. Acarbose was used as the standard reference.The control reaction representing 100% enzyme activitycontained no plant extract.The experiment was carried out in triplicate. A darkbluecolor indicated the presence of starch; a yellowcolor indicated the absence of starch; a brownish colorindicated partially degraded starch in the reaction mix.In the presence of inhibitors, the starch added to theenzyme assay mix did not degrade and gave a darkbluecolor complex. No color complex developed inthe absence of the inhibitor, indicating that starch wascompletely hydrolyzed by α-amylase. The IC50 value wascalculated as follows:Cytotoxicity assay on colon cell lines. Theconventional MTT reduction assay was used to measurethe cell viability [35]. HT 29 Colon cells were obtainedfrom the National Centre for Cell Science (Pune). Theculturing was performed on the medium developed bythe Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI). It included10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), gentamycin (100 μg/mL),penicillin/streptomycin (250 U/mL), and amphotericinB (1 mg/mL). All cell cultures were maintainedat 37°C in a humidified atmosphere of 5% CO2. Cellsgrew to confluence for 24 h before use.As described in [36], we plated HT 29 cells (5×103/well) in 96-well plates for 24 h in 200 μL of the RPMImedium with 10% fetal bovine serum. After the culturesupernatant was removed, the RPMI samples withvarious concentrations (0.001–100 μg/mL) of aqueousC. sativum extracts were added and incubated for48 h. After the treatment, cells were incubated withMTT (10 μL, 5 mg/mL) at 37°C for 4 h and then withdimethyl sulfoxide at room temperature for 1 h. Theplates were tested at 595 nm on a scanning multi-wellspectrophotometer. All experiments were performed induplicates [36].The effect of the extracts on growth inhibition ofHT-29 colon cancer cell line line, %, was calculatedusing the following formula:(2)(4)(5)(3)287Dhakshayani GM et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):283–294phenol (116.78 mg GAE/g) in comparison to that ofmature leaves (72.23 mg GAE/g). In general, bothextracts of microgreens had more total flavonoids,steroids, carbohydrates, and proteins than both extractsof mature leaves. Table 3 illustrates the contents ofascorbic acid, chlorophyll, and carotenoid.Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC/MS).The GC/MS method revealed various bioactiveconstituents in the aqueous extracts of coriandermicrogreens and mature leaves. The analysis showedpeaks at different locations on the chromatogram. InFigs. 1 and 2, the X-axis represents the retention time,while the Y-axis represents the relative abundance. TheGC/MS analysis of a crude extract of microgreensshowed nine major peaks. The crude extract of matureleaves eluted seven major peaks. Tables 4 and 5 illustratea comparative analysis of the mass spectra of theconstituents with the NIST library data.In vitro antioxidant assays. DPPH radicalscavenging assay. The scavenging capacity of theaqueous and ethanol extracts of both coriandermicrogreens and mature leaves on DPPH free radicalswas expressed as inhibition (%) (Tables 6 and 7). TheIC50 was inhibition concentration at 50%: the lowestIC50 indicated the strongest ability of the extracts to actas DPPH radical scavengers. The aqueous and ethanolextracts of mature leaves showed the lowest IC50, whichwere 44.64 and 186.74 μg/mL, respectively. As for theaqueous and ethanol extracts of microgreens, they were90.09 and 293.54 μg/mL, respectively. Compared to thereference standard ascorbic acid inhibition percentage(Fig. 3), the test samples required higher concentrationto inhibit DPPH free radical. Thus, the test samples ofmicrogreens and mature leaves showed dose-dependentscavenging activity.Ferric (Fe3+) reducing antioxidant power assay.For Fe3+ reducing activity, the ascorbic acid was used asTable 2 Phytochemical content of aqueous and ethanol extracts of Coriandrum sativum microgreens and mature leavesPhytochemicalsAqueous extract Ethanol extractMicrogreens Mature leaves Microgreens Mature leavesPhenols, mg GAE/g 98.25 ± 0.27* 107.26 ± 0.29* 116.78 ± 0.28* 72.23 ± 0.28*Flavonoids, mg QE/g 119.43 ± 0.36* 18.58 ± 0.38* 29.15 ± 0.26* 13.61 ± 0.37*Steroids, mg CE/g 140.34 ± 0.57* 101.77 ± 0.28* 50.41 ± 0.52* 33.58 ± 0.38*Carbohydrates, mg GE/g) 457.65 ± 1.6* 398.38 ± 2.3* 169.73 ± 1.50* 124.35 ± 1.04*Proteins, mg/g 156.41 ± 0.38* 117.80 ± 0.31* 101.40 ± 0.37* 75.36 ± 0.35*Each value is expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3) and statistically significant at *P < 0.05Table 3 Ascorbic acid, chlorophyll, and carotenoid contents in Coriandrum sativum microgreens and mature leavesSamples PhytonutrientsAscorbic acid,mg/100 g WChlorophyll-a,mg/g WChlorophyll-b,mg/g WTotal chlorophyll,mg/g WCarotenoid,mg/g WMicrogreens 18.56 ± 0.45* 0.04 ± 0.01* 0.07 ± 0.01* 0.04 ± 0.01* 0.13 ± 0.01*Mature leaves 77.68 ± 0.37* 0.27 ± 0.04* 0.33 ± 0.03* 0.33 ± 0.03* 0.31 ± 0.04*Each value is expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3) and statistically significant at *P < 0.05From the above growth inhibition, (%) percentage ofcell viability was derived using the following formula:Statistical analysis. The phytochemical, antioxidant,and antidiabetic assays were carried out in triplicates,while the anticarcinogenic analysis was carried outin duplicates. The results obtained were expressed asmean ± SD. The statistical analysis was calculated byone-way ANOVA and Student’s t-test using Microsoftexcel. All statistical significance was accepted atP < 0.05.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONPhytochemical analysis. Qualitative phytochemicalanalysis. The qualitative phytochemical analysis of theaqueous and ethanolic extracts of coriander microgreensand mature leaves revealed such phytochemicals asalkaloids, terpenoids, steroids, tannins, flavonoids,phenols, carbohydrates, and proteins. Saponins wereabsent in both aqueous and ethanol extracts ofmicrogreens and mature leaves. However, glycosideswere present in the aqueous extract of microgreens andmature leaves, as well as in the ethanol extract of matureleaves. However, they were absent in the ethanol extractof microgreens.Quantitative phytochemical analysis. Tables 2shows the quantitative phytochemical mean valuesof both aqueous and ethanol extracts of Coriandrumsativum microgreens and mature leaves.According to Table 2, the aqueous extract ofmicrogreens showed a lower total phenol content(98.25 mg GAE/g) than that of mature leaves(107.26 mg GAE/g). However, the ethanol extract ofmicrogreens had significantly (P < 0.05) higher total(6)288Dhakshayani GM et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):283–294Figure 2 Bioactive constituents identified in coriander mature leaves20.5821.60 23.4312.7715.0515.7817.0319.00200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 130010 15 20 25 307000000ScanMin20.5821.60 23.4312.7715.0515.7817.0319.001400000021000000280000003500000042000000490000005600000063000000Figure 1 Bioactive constituents identified in Coriandrum sativum microgreens14.9016.0018.5518.2820.0521.1523.6725.50200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 150014.9016.0018.5518.2820.0521.1523.6725.505 10 15 20 25 30 3510000002000000300000040000005000000600000070000008000000900000010000000110000001200000013000000ScanMinFigure 3 DPPH standard curve of ascorbic acid86.75 88.68 91.74 93.6796.16 97.88y = 11.338x + 33.919R² = 0,48490204060801001200 5 25 30Percentage inhibition10 15 20Concentration, μg/mLAscorbic acid Linear (Ascorbic acid)86.75 88.68 91.74 93.6796.16 97.88y = 11.338x + 33.919R² = 0,48490204060801001200 5 25 30Percentage inhibition10 15 20Concentration, μg/mLAscorbic acid Linear (Ascorbic acid)standard. Figure 4 illustrates the standard curve; Tables8 and 9 show the reducing power of test samples.The aqueous extract of mature leaves showeda slight increase in Fe3+ reduction compared tothat of microgreens. The RC50 (50% reducingconcentration) of microgreens and matureleaves in the aqueous extracts were 234.87 and167.25 μg/mL, respectively. Interestingly, the ethanolextract of microgreens exhibited a greater ferric ionreducing power (31.66% at 300 μg/mL concentration)than that of mature leaves (18.77% at 300 μg/mLconcentration). The ethanol extracts were unableto reduce the free radicals by RC50. The causes maybe in some other chemical constituents thatcompete for reduction by Fe3+ and do not permit Fe3+289Dhakshayani GM et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):283–294Table 4 GC/MS analysis of bioactive compounds in Coriandrum sativum microgreensRT Name Structure Mol.wtg/mol &Mol. FormulaBiological Activity14.9 Benzene, (1-methylenebutyl)- 146C11H14n.d.a.16 10-Methylundecanoic acid methyl ester 214C13H26O2n.d.a.16.55 (7-Phenyl-1H-imidazo[4,5-d] pyridazin-4-yl)-hydrazine226C11H10N6Anticancer, antidiabetic,antiviral, antiosteoporotic, antiinflammatory,antiparasitic,antihypertensive17.48 Phenol, 2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-ethyl-(Phenol)234C16H26OAntioxidant, cytotoxicity,antidiabetic18.28 Propenamide,2-acetamido-3-Phenyl-N-(3-hydroxypropyl)-(amide)262C14H18N2O3Antioxidant20.05 8-carbetoxy-1-methyl-1,4,5,6,7,8-hexahydropyrrolo[2,3-b]azepin-4-one-3-carboxylic acid280C13H16N2O5n.d.a.21.15 5-Phenyl-5,6,7,8-tetrahydro-[1]benzothieno[2,3-d]pyrimidine-2,4-diamine296C16H16N4SAntioxidant, antitumor,anticancer, antidiabetic,antimicrobial, antiviral, antiinflammatory23.67 Z-13-Octadecen-1-yl acetate(Essential oil)310C20H38O2Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory25.5 But-2-endiamide,N,N’-bis[4-methoxyphenyl]- 326C18H18N2O4n.d.a.n.d.a. – no data availableTable 5 GC/MS analysis of bioactive compounds in Coriandrum sativum mature leavesRT Name Structure Mol.wtg/mol &Mol. FormulaBiological Activity12.77 2,4-bis[1,1-dimethylethyl]-phenol(Phenolic compound)206.00C14H22OAntioxidant, antibacterial,anti-inflammatory15.05 1-Cyclopentenylphenylmethane 158.00C12H14n.d.a.15.78 7-Dodecen-6-one(Terpenoid)182.00C12H22OAntioxidant, antibacterial, anti-fungal,anti-malarial17.03 E, E-6,8-Tridecadien-2-ol, acetate(Essential oil)238.00C15H26O2Antimicrobial19 2-Hexadecenoic acid,2,3-dimethyl-, methyl ester, (E)-(Unsaturated fatty acid ester)296C19H36O2Antioxidant, antidiabetic, antitumor,antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, anthelmintic,immunostimulant, lipoxygenase inhibitor20.58 3-Hydroxypregn-5-en20-one(Steroid)316C21H32O2Anti-proliferative23.43 Methoxyaceticacid, octadecylester342C12 H42 O3n.d.a.n.d.a. – no data available290Dhakshayani GM et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):283–294Table 6 DPPH radical scavenging activity of Coriandrum sativum microgreens and mature leaves (aqueous extract)Extract concentration,μg/mLInhibition, % Test samples (IC50 μg/mL) Standard ascorbic acid (IC50 μg/mL)Microgreens Mature leaves Microgreens Mature leaves50 49.51 ± 0.49* 56.22 ± 0.47*90.09 ± 0.45 44.64 ± 0.46 2.88 ± 0.37100 55.41 ± 0.45* 66.66 ± 0.48*150 59.17 ± 0.30 * 70.00 ± 0.50*200 65.44 ± 0.47* 75.55 ± 0.45*250 76.44 ± 0.47* 77.75 ± 0.46*300 81.17 ± 0.30* 84.63 ± 0.41*Each value is expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3) and statistically significant at * P < 0.05Table 7 DPPH radical scavenging activity of Coriandrum sativum microgreens and mature leaves (ethanol extract)Extract concentration,μg/mLInhibition, % Test samples (IC50 μg/mL) Standard ascorbic acid (IC50 μg/mL)Microgreens Mature leaves Microgreens Mature leaves50 7.35 ± 0.39* 14.20 ± 0.30*293.54 ±0.36 186.74 ± 0.43 2.88 ± 0.37100 22.34 ± 0.41* 31.88 ± 0.34*150 37.90 ± 0.36* 39.48 ± 0.45*200 42.79 ± 0.26* 53.42 ± 0.36*250 45.56 ± 0.32* 65.44 ± 0.39*300 51.16 ± 0.30* 75.57 ± 0.32*Each value is expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3) and statistically significant at * P < 0.05Figure 5 Standard curve of acarbose033.346.7163.2468.6576.3682.18y = 12.664x + 2.2629R² = 0.901101020304050607080901000 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percentage inhibitionConcentration, μg/mLAcarbose Linear (Acarbose)17.8136.9441.47 44.1845.6951.59y = 7.7775x + 2.8443R² = 0.83340102030405060700 5 10 15 20 25 30Percentage reductionConcentration, μg/mLAscorbic acid Linear (Ascorbic acid)86.75 88.68 91.74 93.6796.16 97.88y = 11.338x + 33.919R² = 0,48490204060801001200 5 25 30Percentage inhibition10 15 20Concentration, μg/mLAscorbic acid Linear (Ascorbic acid)Figure 4 FRAP standard curve of ascorbic acid86.75 88.68 91.74 93.6796.16 97.88y = 11.338x + 33.919R² = 0,48490204060801001200 5 25 30Percentage inhibition10 15 20Concentration, μg/mLAscorbic acid Linear (Ascorbic acid)Cytotoxicity assay on colon cell lines. Inthe present study, the antioxidant activities of theaqueous extracts were compared to those ofthe ethanolic extracts. The aqueous extract ofmicrogreens and mature leaves were examined forpotential anticancer activity against the human colonHT-29 carcinoma cell line by using the MTT assay.The tests were performed in duplicate. The absorbancevalues were registered in the ELISA reader at 595 nmonce purple color developed after 24 h of incubation.The mean was calculated for two trials (Table 12).to donate an electron. The RC50 value for standardascorbic acid was 29.1 μg/mL.In vitro antidiabetic activity. α-amylase enzymeinhibition assay. Tables 10 and 11 show the inhibitoryactivity of test samples on the α-amylase enzyme. Theaqueous and ethanol extracts of microgreens exhibited50% of inhibition on α-amylase enzyme at 222.22and 84.25 μg/mL. The results were lower than thoseof mature leaves IC50 values, which were 228.31 and206.82 μg/mL, respectively. The standard reference drugacarbose (Fig. 5) showed α-amylase inhibitory activitywith an IC50 valueof 23.71 μg/mL.291Dhakshayani GM et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):283–294As the concentration of the test samplesincreased, the corresponding absorbance valuedecreased (P < 0.05). The MTT assay showed thatthe microgreen sample increased the percentageinhibition and consequently decreased the cellviability to 49.08% with the lowest IC50 valueof 98.34 μg/mL. Mature leaves showed the leastpercentage inhibition and reduced viable cellsto 59.53% with an IC50 value of 123.54 μg/mL(Figs. 6 and 7). Doxorubicin was used as the referencestandard. Figure 8 demonstrates the standardcurve of percent cell viability, which showeda cytotoxicity activity with an IC50 value of11.75 μg/mL.Table 8 Ferric reducing antioxidant power activity of Coriandrum sativum microgreens and mature leaves (aqueous extract)Extract concentration,μg/mLReduction, % Test samples (RC50 μg/mL) Standard ascorbic acid (RC50 μg/mL)Microgreens Mature leaves Microgreens Mature leaves50 22.64 ± 0.21* 19.23 ± 0.25*234.87 ± 0.33 167.25 ± 0.36 29.10 ± 0.36100 25.50 ± 0.35* 33.79 ± 0.31*150 35.36 ± 0.31* 44.36 ± 0.29*200 48.42 ± 0.33* 59.79 ± 0.32*250 53.22 ± 0.23* 60.60 ± 0.36*300 60.31 ± 0.27* 64.64 ± 0.35*Each value is expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3) and statistically significant at * P < 0.05Table 10 α-amylase enzyme inhibition activity of Coriandrum sativum microgreens and mature leaves (aqueous extract)Extract concentration,μg/mLInhibition, % Test samples (IC50 μg/mL) Standard ascorbic acid (IC50 μg/mL)Microgreens Mature leaves Microgreens Mature leaves50 15.66 ± 0.42* 9.57 ± 0.30*222.22 ± 0.37 228.31 ± 0.31 23.70 ± 0.34100 29.83 ± 0.23* 37.82 ± 0.31*150 39.27 ± 0.37* 39.16 ± 0.29*200 46.45 ± 0.37* 45.61 ± 0.44*250 56.25 ± 0.30* 54.75 ± 0.23*300 87.31 ± 0.36* 79.55 ± 0.36*Each value is expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3) and statistically significant at * P < 0.05Table 9 Ferric reducing antioxidant power activity of Coriandrum sativum microgreens and mature leaves (ethanol extract)Extract concentration,μg/mLReduction, % Test samples (RC50 μg/mL) Standard ascorbic acid (RC50 μg/mL)Microgreens Mature leaves Microgreens Mature leaves50 11.27 ± 0.27* 9.52 ± 0.35*Nil Nil 29.10 ± 0.36100 15.41 ± 0.37* 10.59 ± 0.30*150 15.80 ± 0.32* 13.83 ± 0.25*200 19.32 ± 0.32* 14.85 ± 0.24*250 20.04 ± 0.40* 16.50 ± 0.36*300 31.66 ± 0.38* 18.77 ± 0.28*Each value is expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3) and statistically significant at * P < 0.05Table 11 α-amylase enzyme inhibition activity of Coriandrum sativum microgreens and mature leaves (ethanol extract)Extract concentration,μg/mLInhibition, % Test samples (IC50 μg/mL) Standard ascorbic acid (IC50 μg/mL)Microgreens Mature leaves Microgreens Mature leaves50 45.70 ± 0.35* 11.84 ± 0.24*84.25 ± 0.25 206.82 ± 0.35 23.70 ± 0.34100 59.35 ± 0.39* 33.44 ± 0.37*150 65.10 ± 0.31* 40.45 ± 0.36*200 68.82 ± 0.21* 46.58 ± 0.36*250 69.46 ± 0.34* 60.44 ± 0.39*300 69.73 ± 0.25* 61.13 ± 0.27*Each value is expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3) and statistically significant at * P < 0.05292Dhakshayani GM et al. Foods and Raw Materials. 2022;10(2):283–294Figure 6 Effect of aqueous extracts of Coriandrum sativummicrogreens and mature leaves on growth inhibition of HT-29colon cell linealso had a higher α-amylase enzyme inhibitory propertyand a greater anticarcinogenic effecton colon cancercell line. Therefore, C. sativum microgreens provedto be amore effective antioxidant, antidiabetic, andanticarcinogenic agent than mature leaves. Coriandermicrogreens can be as good as mature coriander leavesfor the daily diet of a disease-free community.CONTRIBUTIONThe authors are equally involved in writingthe manuscript and are equally responsible forplagiarism.CONFLICT OF INTERESTThe authors have declared no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this manuscript.