“…The research conducted in our laboratory found that (a) American ginseng roots of less polar ginsenoside‐enriched fraction that contained Rg 6 (15.29%), F 4 (22.40%), 20(S)‐Rg 3 (16.72), 20(R)‐Rg 3 (3.15%), 20(S)‐Rs 3 (1.11%), 20(R)‐Rs 3 (0.33%), Rg 5 (5.14%), and Rk 1 (4.42%; structures are shown in Figure ) demonstrated strong antibacterial activity against Propionibacterium acnes ATCC 11827, P. acnes ATCC6919, S. epidermidis and S. aureus with MIC values of 128, 64, 4,100, and 15,000 μg/ml, respectively; (b) however, the polar ginsenosides' (Re, Rg 1 , Rb 1 , Rb 2 , Rc, Rg 2 , Rd, and Gypenoside XVII) enrich fractions and the fraction rich in both the less polar and the polar ginsenosides did not have antibacterial activity against the four test bacteria (Wang et al, ). Furthermore, the research conducted by Xue, Yang, et al, found that (a) a less polar ginsenoside mixture HTS4 containing 91% of Rg 3 , Rg 6 , F 4 , Rh 4 , Rg 5, Rk 1 , and Rh 2 (structure is shown in Figure ) that were obtained from the heat transformation of American ginseng stems–leaves saponins also showed strong antibacterial properties against anaerobic bacteria Fusobacterium nucleatum , Clostridium perfringens , and Porphyromonas gingivalis ; (b) there were increasing DNA and proteins released along with decreasing membrane potential in the HTS4 treatment group comparing with control group; (c) among the less polar ginsenosides, monomer Rg 5 showed the strongest; Rg 6 and F 4 showed the lowest; whereas Rk 1 , Rh 2 , Rg 3 , and Rh 4 exhibited medium antibacterial effects. Those results indicate that the structure of ginsenosides, such as their number and position of sugar moieties as well as spatial configuration all might affect the antibacterial activity.…”