Background/Objectives: Biofilm formation is a major bacterial survival strategy in response to antibiotic stress. The bacterial second messenger cyclic di-GMP (c-di-GMP) is a central regulator of biofilm development. Sub-minimum inhibitory concentrations (sub-MICs) of antibiotics act as biological active environmental cues that reprogram bacterial physiology and promote biofilm development. This systematic review synthesizes the current literature on sub-MIC antibiotic-induced biofilm formation across different pathogenic bacterial genera and critically evaluates the role of c-di-GMP. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus for articles published from inception to 18 December 2025 using terms including “sub-MIC antibiotic” AND (“biofilm” OR “antibiotic-induced biofilm”) and a second search using “sub-MIC antibiotic” AND “biofilm” AND “c-di-GMP”. Reviews, commentaries, opinions, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and non-English-language articles were excluded. Results: Collectively, 28 identified studies demonstrate that sub-MIC antibiotics modulate biofilm formation through diverse mechanisms that intersect with c-di-GMP activity, including modulation of diguanylate cyclases and phosphodiesterases and through regulatory networks that intersect with quorum sensing and different two-component systems. These responses influence multiple components of biofilm matrix- and biofilm-associated physiology, including exopolysaccharides, extracellular DNA, cell surface proteins, secretion systems, and stress-adaptive multicellular behavior. Conclusions: By positioning c-di-GMP as an integrative, but context-dependent, signaling hub linking antibiotic-induced stress, metabolic adaptation, persistence, and biofilm development, this review highlights critical mechanistic gaps and identifies potential therapeutic targets for disrupting biofilms and improving antibiotic efficacy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Karim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: