GGGiulia Gaudino

Giulia Gaudino

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Giulia Gaudino has a total of 18 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Structural Characterization of Protein–Nucleic Acid Complexes: An Overview of the Recent Innovation in the Analytic Methods

    by Maria Laura Bellone, Francesca Mensitieri, Elvira Marmo, Alessia Nunzia Calabrese, Giulia Gaudino, Viviana Izzo, Fabrizio Dal Piaz

    The study of gene expression regulation systems, transcriptional, post-transcriptional, and translational processes require in-depth knowledge of the structure and dynamics of protein–DNA and protein–RNA complexes. Furthermore, the discovery of the multiple roles played by different types of RNA, including within extracellular vesicles, has raised new questions about the systems responsible for stabilizing and transporting these RNAs. Over the years, numerous experimental approaches have been developed for the study of complexes between proteins and nucleic acids, both in terms of the type and degree of accuracy of the information they are able to provide. Furthermore, some techniques have proven suitable for monitoring dynamic processes, while others provide very high-resolution data. Finally, the different methods also differ in their applicability directly to the study of complexes within their biological environment, while others can only be used on purified samples. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of many of these approaches, accompanied by some examples of recent applications, to highlight their strengths and limitations.


  • Open Access

    Pharmacological Treatments and Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Patients with Chronic Pain

    by Federica De Rosa, Bruno Giannatiempo, Bruno Charlier, Albino Coglianese, Francesca Mensitieri, Giulia Gaudino, Armando Cozzolino, Amelia Filippelli, Ornella Piazza, Fabrizio Dal Piaz, et al.

    Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience that affects every aspect of a patient’s life and which may be treated through different pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Analgesics are the drugs most commonly used to treat pain, and in specific situations, the use of opioids may be considered with caution. These drugs, in fact, do not always induce optimal analgesia in patients, and several problems are associated with their use. The purpose of this narrative review is to describe the pharmacological approaches currently used for the management of chronic pain. We review several aspects, from the pain-scale-based methods currently available to assess the type and intensity of pain, to the most frequently administered drugs (non-narcotic analgesics and narcotic analgesics), whose pharmacological characteristics are briefly reported. Overall, we attempt to provide an overview of different pharmacological treatments while also illustrating the relevant guidelines and indications. We then report the strategies that may be used to reduce problems related to opioid use. Specifically, we focus our attention on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), a tool that could help clinicians select the most suitable drug and dose to be used for each patient. The actual potential of using TDM to optimize and personalize opioid-based pain treatments is finally discussed based on recent scientific reports.


  • Open Access

    In Vitro Evaluation of Antibacterial and Antibiofilm Activity of Different Chlorhexidine-Containing Mouthwash Formulations against Streptococcus mutans

    by Francesca Mensitieri, Mario Caggiano, Giulia Gaudino, Bruno Charlier, Albino Coglianese, Alessandra Amato, Federica Di Spirito, Massimo Amato, Fabrizio Dal Piaz, Viviana Izzo

    Daily use of mouthwash is generally recommended to control dental plaque development and limit further adhesion of oral bacteria. To this purpose, Chlorhexidine di-gluconate (CHG)-containing products are still the most used antiseptic in oral health. The aim of this study was to compare the antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity of three different mouthwash commercial formulations containing CHG at the same concentration (0.2%) on the main etiological agent of dental plaque, Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans). Liquid Chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was used to confirm the CHG concentration in the commercial formulations. The Minimal Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimal Bactericidal concentration (MBC) were measured to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of mouthwashes on planktonic cells. The biofilm prevention concentration (BPC) and CHG formulation activity towards mature biofilm were investigated. Both total cell titer and viability in S. mutans pregrown biofilms were evaluated after treatment with formulations at different time points and concentrations, using Crystal Violet (CV) and tetrazolium dye assay (MTT). The Shapiro–Wilk and Levene tests were used to evaluate the normality and overall homogeneity of the datasets, respectively. The chi-square test, Fischer’s exact test and Student’s t-test were used to evaluate the inhibitory capacity of the commercial formulations in CV and MTT assays. Results showed that even though only slight differences in MIC and MBC values were found on planktonic bacteria, the antibiofilm effect of the different formulations exhibited wide variation when mature biofilms were treated. In addition, results were discussed based on the different compositions of the three formulations, suggesting that herbal extracts, when present in mouthwash formulations, may not always have a beneficial effect, especially when mature biofilms are concerned.