## 2 Results  
### Fat Content and Fatty Acid Profiles  
After isolation of RM and SC fats by the Rose-Gottlieb method, their yields were determined (Figure 1). Thus, 2.0 \(\pm\) 0.1-4.5 \(\pm\) 0.3% and 5.2 \(\pm\) 0.2-8.3 \(\pm\) 0.5% were the fat contents for RM and SC, respectively, and the average values for each type of samples were 3.7 \(\pm\) 0.9% (RM) and 7.3 \(\pm\) 0.9% (SC). Moreover, there were higher variations in fat content among the milk samples, but in the SC samples the variations were smaller; the greatest variation was found in the sample from location 8 (SC prepared from raw milk spontaneously fermented for one day in \"totuma\") with the lowest yield (5.2 \(\pm\) 0.2%). Nonetheless, the ratios between SC and RM yields indicated that the fat content in the SC samples was higher in most cases (1.3 to 3.6 times).  
The result of the Shapiro-Wilks (S-W) test for the raw data showed that both RM and SC yields had a normal distribution (_p_: 0.1714; _p_: 0.1503--Table S1), while the results of the non-parametric ANOVA showed that there were significant differences (_p_ < 0.0001, Friedman (F) test--Table S2) between the yields of RM compared to those of SC, but within each group (RM and SC) there were no differences (_p_ > 0.999, Kruskal-Wallis (K-W) test--Table S3).  
Concerning the fatty acids of the RM- and SC-fat fractions, these were characterized as methyl esters (FAMEs) (Figure S1) and reported (>99%) in Table S4. According to the Table, the FAs of the samples were similar, with some differences in their relative amounts, with C\({}_{6}\)-C\({}_{25}\) fatty acids (saturated and unsaturated) being representative in all samples; thus, the predominant FAs in the RM and SC samples in order of abundance were palmitic (C\({}_{16:0}\); 21-29%), oleic (C\({}_{18:1}\)_cis_-\(\Delta^{9}\); 13-22%), stearic (C\({}_{18:0}\); 12-17%), and myri  
Figure 1: Yields (%) of fat content for the RM and SC samples (measure unit: mean \(\pm\) standard deviation).  
acids (Figure S2) and the total content of saturated (SFAs), monounsaturated (MUFAs), and polyunsaturated (PUFAs) fatty acids ranged between 59-69%, 27-36%, and 2.9-5.0%, respectively (Figure 2a). In addition, the contents of n-3, n-6, and n-9 acids were 0.2-1.2%, 0.6-1.5%, and 19-30%, in that order, for both RM and SC (Figure 2b). Another important fact is that a non-negligible percentage (7-17%) of C\({}_{18:1}\) octadecenoic acid isomers (\(Z/E\)) was determined in all samples, as well as one n-3 pentausaturated fatty acid (EPA isomer) [32] and some branched and odd-numbered fatty acids (C\({}_{9:0}\)-C\({}_{25:0}\)).  
On the other hand, the atherogenic (AI) and thrombogenic (TI) indices, which are dietary risk values for cardiovascular disease related to the platelet aggregation inhibition (AI) and blood clot formation (TI) [33], were calculated for each sample. Thus, the AI and TI values were 1.4-2.8 and 2.0-3.3 for both RM and SC. Statistical analysis of these data using S-W, Friedman, and K-W tests (Tables S5-S13) indicated that the four main FAs, along with the classification by FA families and the AI and TI values of both types of samples (RM and SC), had a normal distribution (\(p\): 0.3497-0.9850, \(p\): 0.1209-0.6500, and \(p\): 0.3186-0.5202); and there were no significant differences within and between all samples (Friedman: \(p\): 0.9685 and 0.8546--major FA, \(p\): 0.3251 and 0.4986--families of FAs; KW: \(p\): 0.9999--major FA, \(p\): 0.4514--families of FAs, \(p\): 0.4514--AI and TI values). However, there were significant differences for AI and TI values within the SC samples (\(p<0.0001\)--Friedman test) but not for the RM samples (\(p\): 0.0672--Friedman test).  
Figure 2: Grouping of FAs in RM and SC samples based on (**a**) degree of saturation and (**b**) type of omega. SFAs: saturated fatty acids, MUFAs: monounsaturated fatty acids, and PUFAs: polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 acids, n-6 acids, and n-9 acids).