{
 "id": "epcbkckyzx",
 "slug": "molecular-replacement",
 "title": "Molecular replacement",
 "updated": "2026-10-15",
 "topic_path": [
  {
   "id": "physical",
   "label": "Physical world and mathematics",
   "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/physical"
  },
  {
   "id": "physical.physics",
   "label": "Physics",
   "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/physical.physics"
  },
  {
   "id": "physical.physics.matter-and-radiation",
   "label": "Matter and radiation physics",
   "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/physical.physics.matter-and-radiation"
  },
  {
   "id": "physical.physics.matter-and-radiation.condensed-matter",
   "label": "Condensed matter physics",
   "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/physical.physics.matter-and-radiation.condensed-matter"
  },
  {
   "id": "physical.physics.matter-and-radiation.condensed-matter.cm-structures",
   "label": "Crystal and structural condensed matter",
   "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/physical.physics.matter-and-radiation.condensed-matter.cm-structures"
  }
 ],
 "geo": [
  {
   "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.physics.matter-and-radiation.condensed-matter.cm-structures",
   "label": "Non-geographic · 1946 to 2000: Crystal and structural condensed matter",
   "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.physics.matter-and-radiation.condensed-matter.cm-structures",
   "path": [
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo",
     "label": "Non-geographic",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo"
    },
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946",
     "label": "Non-geographic · 1946 to 2000",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946"
    },
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.physical",
     "label": "Physical world and mathematics",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.physical"
    },
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.physics",
     "label": "Physics",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.physics"
    },
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.physics.matter-and-radiation",
     "label": "Matter and radiation physics",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.physics.matter-and-radiation"
    },
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.physics.matter-and-radiation.condensed-matter",
     "label": "Condensed matter physics",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.physics.matter-and-radiation.condensed-matter"
    },
    {
     "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.physics.matter-and-radiation.condensed-matter.cm-structures",
     "label": "Crystal and structural condensed matter",
     "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.physical.physics.matter-and-radiation.condensed-matter.cm-structures"
    }
   ]
  }
 ],
 "excerpt": "Molecular replacement is a crystallographic phasing method that estimates diffraction phases for a new protein structure from a related molecule's known structure, solving most structures today.",
 "snippet": "Molecular replacement is a crystallographic phasing method that estimates diffraction phases for a new protein structure from a related molecule's known structure, solving most structures today.",
 "node": "physical.physics.matter-and-radiation.condensed-matter.cm-structures",
 "markdown": "# Molecular replacement\n\nMolecular replacement (MR) is a crystallographic phasing (recovering missing wave information needed to compute electron-density maps) method that solves a new protein structure by using the known structure of a related molecule to estimate the phases of the diffraction data. Measuring diffraction intensities gives amplitudes but not phases, and an electron-density map cannot be calculated without phase estimates; MR supplies those initial estimates from a homologous model already in the database of known structures.<sup>[1](https://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2008/01/00/ba5108/ba5108.pdf)</sup> It is the least expensive and fastest crystallographic phasing method, but it requires at least one structural homologue sufficiently close to the target.<sup>[2](https://doi.org/10.1107/s0907444913015291)</sup>\n\n| Key fact | Detail |\n|---|---|\n| What it produces | Initial phase estimates for a new structure, from a related molecule of known crystal structure<sup>[1](https://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2008/01/00/ba5108/ba5108.pdf)</sup> |\n| Usage share | Used to solve up to 70% of structures as of a 2008 review, growing as the database of known structures expands<sup>[1](https://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2008/01/00/ba5108/ba5108.pdf)</sup> |\n| Search space | Six dimensions: three orientation parameters and three position parameters, reduced by separate rotation and translation searches<sup>[3](https://www.phaser.cimr.cam.ac.uk/Course/MolRep/molrep.html)</sup> |\n| Model similarity | Fairly straightforward with a fairly complete model sharing at least 30% sequence identity; in RMSD terms, above 2.5 Å is very unlikely to work and 1.5 Å or less is preferable<sup>[3](https://www.phaser.cimr.cam.ac.uk/Course/MolRep/molrep.html)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[4](https://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/reference/mr_overview.html)</sup> |\n| Success scores | A translation-function Z-score (TFZ) of 8 or above usually indicates a correct solution; a 2024 benchmark also accepted a global map CC above 0.25 or LLG better than 64 with TFZ better than 8.0<sup>[5](https://www.xtal.iqf.csic.es/Cristalografia/archivos_07/MolecularReplacement-EDodson-ActaCrystD-2021.pdf)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[6](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11544426/)</sup> |\n| Data requirement | A single data set from a single crystal, which minimizes radiation-damage effects<sup>[7](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2483472/)</sup> |\n\n## How it works\n\nThe Patterson function is important in crystallography because it can be computed without phase information; it is a map of interatomic vectors. A Patterson computed from a trial model should match the observed Patterson from the crystal when the model is correctly oriented and positioned, so the search scores the overlap between the two.<sup>[3](https://www.phaser.cimr.cam.ac.uk/Course/MolRep/molrep.html)</sup> Placing a model requires six parameters, three for orientation and three for position, and the problem is made tractable by treating rotation and translation separately: a rotation function (RF) determines the model's orientation, and a translation function (TF) determines its absolute position in the unit cell.<sup>[3](https://www.phaser.cimr.cam.ac.uk/Course/MolRep/molrep.html)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[4](https://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/reference/mr_overview.html)</sup>\n\nThe original concept of the method was a three-stage process: determination of the relative orientation (\"rotation\") of identical unknown structures in the same or different crystals; use of that information to determine the position of the local non-crystallographic operators relative to the crystallographic symmetry elements (\"translation\"); and phase determination using knowledge of the non-crystallographic operators derived in the first two stages.<sup>[8](https://hod.greeley.org/papers/ByAuthor/Rossmann/bu0222.pdf)</sup> Traditional rotation searches score the overlap between observed and calculated Patterson maps, whereas maximum-likelihood methods use a statistical target: the best model is the one most consistent with the data, measured by the probability that the data would be measured given the model being tested.<sup>[1](https://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2008/01/00/ba5108/ba5108.pdf)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[3](https://www.phaser.cimr.cam.ac.uk/Course/MolRep/molrep.html)</sup>\n\n## How it is done\n\nIn the Phenix implementation, MR is performed by Phaser and runs as an automated pipeline: anisotropy correction, tNCS (translational non-crystallographic symmetry) correction, rotation function, translation function, packing analysis, rigid-body refinement and phasing, and a final log-likelihood gain (LLG) calculation used to evaluate success.<sup>[4](https://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/reference/mr_overview.html)</sup> The maximum-likelihood phasing methods require prior knowledge of the deviation of the search model from the real structure, specified as an RMSD or percent sequence identity; model preparation is aided by the programs Sculptor and Ensembler.<sup>[4](https://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/reference/mr_overview.html)</sup>\n\nScores are interpreted against calibrated thresholds. LLGI is the difference between the likelihood of the current model predicting the observed intensities and the likelihood based on a random Wilson distribution of intensities; the Z-score (TFZ) shows how many standard deviations a solution's LLGI is above the mean, and a score of 8 or above usually indicates a correct solution.<sup>[5](https://www.xtal.iqf.csic.es/Cristalografia/archivos_07/MolecularReplacement-EDodson-ActaCrystD-2021.pdf)</sup> In Molrep, the rotation-function score RFZ should be greater than 5 with a clear peak, and pseudo-translation peaks near 0.15 of the origin height can give unreasonably high correlation coefficients for wrong solutions.<sup>[9](https://cloud.ccp4.ac.uk/manuals/html-taskref/doc.task.Molrep.html)</sup> Success is ultimately judged by whether electron-density maps from the partial model show where corrections are needed and whether initial R factors decrease significantly in early refinement cycles.<sup>[5](https://www.xtal.iqf.csic.es/Cristalografia/archivos_07/MolecularReplacement-EDodson-ActaCrystD-2021.pdf)</sup>\n\n## Origin\n\nThe method was reported by M. G. Rossmann and D. M. Blow in \"The detection of sub-units within the crystallographic asymmetric unit\", published in Acta Crystallographica in 1962; this paper introduced the rotation and translation functions and the concept of non-crystallographic symmetry on which the method rests.<sup>[10](https://doi.org/10.1107/s0365110x62000067)</sup> An earlier rotation-function approach had been used to find the skeleton of small molecules in a related crystal, and fast [Fourier transform](https://www.edgepedia.org/fourier-transform) implementations of the rotation function later made it practical to generate maps for all rotation angles.<sup>[5](https://www.xtal.iqf.csic.es/Cristalografia/archivos_07/MolecularReplacement-EDodson-ActaCrystD-2021.pdf)</sup> The automated package AMoRe followed in 1994, reported by J. Navaza in Acta Crystallographica Section A.<sup>[11](https://doi.org/10.1107/s0108767393007597)</sup> The maximum-likelihood reformulation was implemented in Phaser, reported by Airlie J. McCoy and colleagues in the [Journal of Applied Crystallography](https://www.edgepedia.org/journal-of-applied-crystallography) in 2007.<sup>[7](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2483472/)</sup>\n\n## Variants\n\n**Phaser** bases its rotation, translation, and SAD functions on maximum likelihood probability theory and multivariate statistics rather than traditional least-squares and Patterson methods.<sup>[7](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2483472/)</sup> **AMoRe** and **MOLREP** both implement automation strategies for MR, though they lack likelihood-based scoring functions; Molrep performs MR as a rotation function followed by a cross translation function and packing function, all correlation functions between observed and calculated model Pattersons.<sup>[7](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2483472/)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[9](https://cloud.ccp4.ac.uk/manuals/html-taskref/doc.task.Molrep.html)</sup>\n\nWhen no homologous model exists, fragment-based phasing offers an alternative: the ARCIMBOLDO approach combines localizing model fragments such as small α-helices with Phaser and [density modification](https://www.edgepedia.org/density-modification) with SHELXE to work with 2 Å data; it was implemented in the program Arcimboldo and solved a 222-amino-acid structure at 1.95 Å.<sup>[12](https://www.nature.com/articles/nmeth.1365)</sup> **MR-SAD** combines a poor but genuine MR solution with SAD data to identify heavy-atom sites, providing a decent-quality map where neither technique alone suffices.<sup>[4](https://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/reference/mr_overview.html)</sup>\n\n## Applications\n\nPredicted structures have become search models in their own right. SARS-CoV-2 ORF8 was solved by MR using the CASP14 AlphaFold2 prediction (model ID T1064TS427_1-D1) prepared with the Phenix software suite, an early demonstration of predicted-model MR.<sup>[13](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pro.4050)</sup> A 2024 benchmark tested AlphaFold2 (v2.3.2) and ColabFold (v1.5.1) models through a CCP4/Phaser pipeline, using SnD to truncate residues with pLDDT below 70 and setting Phaser's assumed model similarity to an RMSD of 1.2 Å; success was scored as a global map CC above 0.25, or LLG better than 64 and TFZ better than 8.0 per search model.<sup>[6](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11544426/)</sup> MR success at a given diffraction resolution limit depends on the RMSD of the model to the target and on the fraction of the total scattering mass (\\( f_{\\mathrm{m}} \\)) the model represents; as data quality decreases, the required \\( f_{\\mathrm{m}} \\) must increase.<sup>[14](https://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2022/01/00/qg5003/qg5003.pdf)</sup>\n\n## Limitations and alternatives\n\n**Model similarity limits.** Phenix documentation gives sequence-identity thresholds: better than 40% usually easy (unless large conformational changes are involved), 30–40% usually possible, 20–30% usually difficult and requiring careful model search and preparation, and below 20% unlikely to work except with MR-Rosetta in marginal cases.<sup>[4](https://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/reference/mr_overview.html)</sup> A review of MR practice states that in most successful cases the target shares at least 35% sequence identity with the homologue, corresponding to a Cα RMSD of around 1.5 Å, and that below this threshold, down to 20%, the overall fold is usually conserved but structural differences become too large for the standard protocol. The two threshold schemes differ in where they place the easy-to-difficult boundary, so both should be read as rules of thumb rather than sharp cutoffs.\n\n**Failure modes.** Even a correct solution with a poor model gives starting R factors of about 55%; if initial refinement cycles cannot reduce them below 50%, the solution is probably wrong.<sup>[5](https://www.xtal.iqf.csic.es/Cristalografia/archivos_07/MolecularReplacement-EDodson-ActaCrystD-2021.pdf)</sup> Correct solutions should show map features absent from the model, such as new side chains; otherwise the model is probably wrong, the classic model-bias failure.<sup>[9](https://cloud.ccp4.ac.uk/manuals/html-taskref/doc.task.Molrep.html)</sup> MR can still fail with many copies of the search model in the asymmetric unit, crystal pathologies such as twinning and tNCS, and crystals that diffract only to 3 Å or poorer; data resolution below about 3 Å also makes model rebuilding more difficult, although twinning usually does not prevent the MR search itself from succeeding.<sup>[6](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11544426/)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[5](https://www.xtal.iqf.csic.es/Cristalografia/archivos_07/MolecularReplacement-EDodson-ActaCrystD-2021.pdf)</sup> Screening many different homology models may still produce a solution when the original template fails.\n\n**Comparison with experimental phasing.** MR and SAD are well suited to automated structure-solution pipelines because both require only a single data set from a single crystal, minimizing radiation-damage effects; multi-wavelength and multi-crystal experimental methods do not share this advantage.<sup>[7](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2483472/)</sup> When no adequate model exists, the practical alternatives are fragment-based phasing with ARCIMBOLDO, MR-SAD, or switching to experimental phasing with SAD or MAD data.<sup>[12](https://www.nature.com/articles/nmeth.1365)</sup><sup> • </sup><sup>[4](https://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/reference/mr_overview.html)</sup>\n\n## References\n\n1. [An introduction to molecular replacement (Read, Acta Cryst. D, 2008)](https://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2008/01/00/ba5108/ba5108.pdf)\n2. [Molecular replacement: tricks and treats](https://doi.org/10.1107/s0907444913015291)\n3. [Molecular Replacement (Phaser course material, CIMR Cambridge)](https://www.phaser.cimr.cam.ac.uk/Course/MolRep/molrep.html)\n4. [Overview of molecular replacement in Phenix](https://www.phenix-online.org/documentation/reference/mr_overview.html)\n5. [Introduction to molecular replacement: a time perspective (Dodson, Acta Cryst. D, 2021)](https://www.xtal.iqf.csic.es/Cristalografia/archivos_07/MolecularReplacement-EDodson-ActaCrystD-2021.pdf)\n6. [The success rate of processed predicted models in molecular replacement: implications for experimental phasing in the AlphaFold era (2024)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11544426/)\n7. [Phaser crystallographic software (McCoy et al., Acta Cryst. D, 2007)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2483472/)\n8. [The Molecular Replacement Method (Rossmann)](https://hod.greeley.org/papers/ByAuthor/Rossmann/bu0222.pdf)\n9. [Molrep, CCP4 Cloud documentation](https://cloud.ccp4.ac.uk/manuals/html-taskref/doc.task.Molrep.html)\n10. [M. G. Rossmann, D. M. Blow (1962). The detection of sub-units within the crystallographic asymmetric unit. Acta Crystallographica.](https://doi.org/10.1107/s0365110x62000067)\n11. [J. Navaza (1994). AMoRe: an automated package for molecular replacement. Acta Crystallographica Section A Foundations of Crystallography.](https://doi.org/10.1107/s0108767393007597)\n12. [Crystallographic ab initio protein structure solution below atomic resolution (Nature Methods; ARCIMBOLDO)](https://www.nature.com/articles/nmeth.1365)\n13. [Crystallographic molecular replacement using an in silico-generated search model of SARS-CoV-2 ORF8 (Protein Science)](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pro.4050)\n14. [Implications of AlphaFold2 for crystallographic phasing by molecular replacement (Acta Cryst. D, 2022)](https://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2022/01/00/qg5003/qg5003.pdf)\n\n---\n*Topic: Encyclopedia › Physical world and mathematics › Physics › Matter and radiation physics › Condensed matter physics › Crystal and structural condensed matter*\n\n*Initially written Sep 29, 2026 · Edited: Oct 15, 2026*\n\n*Copyright 2026 EdgeChat AI, a subsidiary of Biostate AI.*\n\nLicense: Edgepedia Community License 1.0, https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license\n",
 "same_as": [],
 "url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/molecular-replacement",
 "markdown_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/molecular-replacement.md",
 "license": {
  "name": "Edgepedia Community License 1.0",
  "url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license",
  "summary": "Free with credit, commercial use included. AI training is open to everyone. For other uses, organizations over USD 100M in revenue or 100M monthly users license separately.",
  "spdx": "LicenseRef-Edgepedia-Community-1.0"
 },
 "credit": "\"Molecular replacement\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), https://www.edgepedia.org/molecular-replacement. Edgepedia Community License 1.0.",
 "credit_md": "\"[Molecular replacement](https://www.edgepedia.org/molecular-replacement)\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), [https://www.edgepedia.org/molecular-replacement](https://www.edgepedia.org/molecular-replacement). [Edgepedia Community License 1.0](https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license).",
 "credit_html": "\"<a href=\"https://www.edgepedia.org/molecular-replacement\">Molecular replacement</a>\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), <a href=\"https://www.edgepedia.org/molecular-replacement\">https://www.edgepedia.org/molecular-replacement</a>. <a href=\"https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license\">Edgepedia Community License 1.0</a>.",
 "speakable": "Molecular replacement is a crystallographic phasing method that estimates diffraction phases for a new protein structure from a related molecule's known structure, solving most structures today."
}