Table 4. mtDNA – admixture proportions.
| Local Indian closest neighbors (Parental) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Admixed | Uttar Pradesh | Gujarat | Andhra Pradesh | Tamil Nadu | Arabia (Parental) | Iran (Parental) |
| Indian Shia | 1.15 (0.09) | −0.15 (0.09)a | ||||
| 1.13 (0.06) | −0.13 (0.06)a | |||||
| Indian Sunni | 1.36 (0.08) | −0.36 (0.08)a | ||||
| 1.29 (0.07) | −0.29 (0.07)a | |||||
| Dawoodi Bohra (TN)b | 0.90 (0.11) | 0.10 (0.11) | ||||
| 1.004 (0.12) | −0.004 (0.12)a | |||||
| Dawoodi Bohra (TN)b | 0.70 (0.07) | 0.30 (0.07) | ||||
| 0.77 (0.06) | 0.23 (0.06) | |||||
| Dawoodi Bohra (GUJ) | 0.98 (0.12) | 0.02 (0.12) | ||||
| 1.001 (0.12) | −0.001 (0.12)a | |||||
| Iranian Shia | 0.22 (0.1) | 0.78 (0.1) | ||||
| 0.29 (0.1) | 0.71 (0.1) | |||||
| Mappla | 0.97 (0.06) | 0.03 (0.06) | ||||
| 0.96 (0.05) | 0.04 (0.05) | |||||
Values in parenthesis denote SDs.
a
Negative values indicate negligible contributions and suggest that the simple admixture model between the given sources is unlikely to be realistic to explain the genetic variation in the given sink population (personal communication, Giorgio Bertorelle).
b
Admixture contributions were estimated with local populations from both Tamil Nadu and Gujarat because these Muslims are recent migrants from Gujarat settled in Tamil Nadu.