## 3 Results and Discussion
### Enzyme Inhibition Potential of Corn Silk  
Most pathology mechanisms usually imply one irregular-working enzyme, something that either works too much or something that does not work at all, or even something that \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Extract**} & **TPC** & **TFC** & **ABTS** & **DPPH** & **FRAP** \\  & **(mg GAE/g Extract)** & **(mg QE/g Extract)** & **(mg TE/g Extract)** & **(mg TE/g Extract)** & **(mg TE/g Extract)** \\ \hline
**MSI** & 39.73 \(\pm\) 1.48 b & 8.69 \(\pm\) 0.17 c & 60.95 \(\pm\) 1.56 c & 24.80 \(\pm\) 0.13 c & 65.70 \(\pm\) 5.11 c \\
**MSE50** & 33.79 \(\pm\) 1.51 c & 8.68 \(\pm\) 0.43 c & 63.60 \(\pm\) 1.37 b & 22.62 \(\pm\) 0.90 d & 112.54 \(\pm\) 2.86 a \\
**MSE70** & 40.83 \(\pm\) 1.89 b & 12.43 \(\pm\) 0.05 b & 64.60 \(\pm\) 1.36 b & 33.747 \(\pm\) 0.98 b & 116.94 \(\pm\) 2.01 a \\
**MSO** & 50.69 \(\pm\) 0.36 a & 23.54 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 78.33 \(\pm\) 0.94 a & 65.21 \(\pm\) 0.09 a & 101.02 \(\pm\) 0.72 b \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Notes: results have been expressed as average (\(n\) = 3) and standard deviation; individual superscript letters indicate significant statistical differences among every type of extract (every column).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results for the TPC, TFC, and in vitro antioxidant activity (through ABTS-TEAC, DPPH, and FRAP assays). works just fine but inhibiting or inducing proves helpful in that disease, so in vitro assays are a helpful tool to explore whether one vegetal matrix has any potential in a specific disease or if it is fit to undergo further modulation, albeit at the extraction level or at a molecular level. This approach is fit for CS, too. For example, previous studies have shown that CS is a fair inhibitor of \(\alpha\)-glucosidase, an enzyme found in the intestines meant to break down bigger polysaccharide molecules into glucose, inducing higher blood sugar levels. Patients with diabetes mellitus benefit from \(\alpha\)-glucosidase inhibitors as they help them maintain normal blood sugar levels. Some authors concluded that the molecules present in CS responsible for the antidiabetic effects are polysaccharides and flavonoids, but, to the best of our knowledge, none of them explored the individual impact of each of these two. Polysaccharides are extensive molecules that are usually best extracted while using aqueous solutions, solutions where the pH is either acidic or alkaline, or while using ultrasounds or microwaves, but this is hugely dependent on the type of polysaccharide and on its source [55]. Polysaccharides usually precipitate when put in contact with alcohol, and, considering the solvents of our choice were water and ethanolic solutions, this leaves room to examine and correlate the inhibitory effect on \(\alpha\)-glucosidase with the principal constituent--flavonoids in alcoholic extracts, polysaccharides in aqueous solutions. As it can be observed in Table 3, the most relevant inhibitory activity that we have identified is the anti-glucosidase activity, and the samples MSE70 and MSO showed the best activity. According to the statistical analysis, there was no significant difference between these two samples (\(p>0.05\)). The weakest activity has been identified for MSI, where the IC\({}_{50}\) was more than double in comparison to MSE70 and MSO. Comparing these results with the therapeutic standard (Acarbose, with an IC\({}_{50}\) of 52.04 \(\pm\) 2.30 \(\upmu\)g/mL), we can conclude that the hydroethanolic and optimized extraction yielded the most potent mix of compounds with in vitro antidiabetic activity. Probably, this yield could be explained based on the selective extraction of flavonoids in the presence of ethanol, which is a less polar solvent in comparison to water [56]. Another analysis done on CS extracts was the AChE inhibition assay.