What is it about?
The article reframes biofilms as microbial communities attached to surfaces and embedded in a self-produced extracellular polymeric matrix. It treats them as a fundamental biological architecture rather than a niche curiosity or merely a contamination problem. It links biofilms to early-life scenarios in which surface-associated compartments and concentrated chemistry could have enabled sustained molecular interactions and selection. It then extends the same logic into modern biology by presenting biofilms as organized, communicative systems shaped by quorum sensing, spatial structure, and division of labor. It connects these principles to two high-impact arenas. First, host-associated biofilms, notably in the gut and other mucosae, as functional interfaces that influence barrier integrity, immune tone, nutrient processing, and pathogen exclusion. Second, plant-associated biofilms in the rhizosphere as ecological infrastructure for nutrient cycling, water retention, stress tolerance, and disease resistance. Against that backdrop, the article argues that the spaceflight environment, including microgravity, radiation, confinement, altered fluid dynamics, and limited resupply, can perturb biofilm formation, signaling, matrix production, antimicrobial tolerance, and community composition. The consequences remain incompletely mapped but are operationally relevant for long-duration missions.
Featured Image
Photo by NASA on Unsplash
Why is it important?
It shifts the operational question from how to eradicate biofilms to which biofilms to suppress, which to preserve, and which to engineer as mission-critical functionality. In closed, resource-constrained habitats, biofilms are not optional. They will emerge on surfaces, in water systems, and within hosts. If beneficial biofilms are destabilized, host defenses and metabolic homeostasis can degrade. If opportunistic or pathogenic biofilms are selected for, infection risk and antimicrobial tolerance can increase. The same logic applies to plants. Rhizosphere biofilms are plausibly central to stable crop performance under extraterrestrial constraints, and their failure modes could translate directly into reduced yields and system instability. The article also motivates a methodological pivot toward integrating open space biology datasets with multi-omics, mechanistic modeling, and AI-enabled inference. The goal is to move from descriptive observations to prediction and control, including monitoring biofilm states, anticipating transitions, and rationally modulating community function.
Perspectives
One perspective is to treat biofilm state as a primary variable in space life-support biology, understood as an emergent community-level phenotype integrating signaling, matrix physics, and spatial ecology, and not reliably inferred from planktonic measurements alone. A second perspective is clinical. Biofilms at mucosal interfaces should be managed as part of mission medicine, where the goal is not sterilization but maintenance of protective functions while preventing selection for opportunists and tolerance. A third perspective is agro-ecological. Rhizosphere biofilms and plant-growth-promoting consortia can be designed as engineered ecosystems tuned for nutrient mobilization, water economy, and biocontrol in closed-loop cultivation. A fourth perspective is translational. Space is a forcing function that can expose governing principles of biofilm robustness and adaptation, feeding back into Earth applications in infection control, microbiome therapeutics, and sustainable agriculture, especially if paired with open-data infrastructures that allow cumulative, model-driven progress.
MIGUEL ANGEL VARGAS CRUZ
Grupo Alianza Empresarial
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Biofilms: from the cradle of life to life support, npj Biofilms and Microbiomes, January 2026, Springer Science + Business Media,
DOI: 10.1038/s41522-025-00875-8.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page







