Fig. 2: NAC prevents sociability impairments induced by adolescent exposure to THC.

Social interaction test (n:VEH = 11, THC = 10, VEH-NAC = 10; THC-NAC = 10). Schematic of the three-chamber test and procedure for social motivation a and social recognition e experimental phases. b Duration that rats spent exploring an empty cage vs. a cage containing stranger rat. Paired t-tests revealed that rats in all experimental groups preferred to explore the stranger rat (VEH: t₍₁₀₎ = −5.55, p < 0.001; THC: t₍₉₎ = −4.69, p = 0.001; VEH-NAC: t₍₉₎ = −4.67, p = 0.001; THC-NAC: t₍₉₎ = −12.15, p < 0.001). c Social preference scores were similar across all treatment groups (two-way ANOVA: IP treatment: F_(1,37) = 0.001, p = 0.981; oral treatment: F_(1,37) = 0.139, p = 0.712; IP*oral treatment: F_(1,37) = 0.423, p = 0.52). d Radial plot depicting the percentage of animals displaying preference toward stranger rat (score > 0.55; purple). Note no differences between groups. f Duration that rats spent exploring a novel vs. familiar rat. Paired t-tests: VEH: t₍₁₀₎ = −5.464, p < 0.001; THC: t₍₉₎ = −1.036, p = 0.327; VEH-NAC: t₍₉₎ = −3.121, p = 0.012; THC-NAC: t₍₉₎ = −4.65, p = 0.001. g Social recognition scores were lower for THC-exposed rats (two-way ANOVA: IP treatment: F_(1,37) = 1.058, p = 0.31; oral treatment: F_(1,37) = 4.078, p = 0.051; IP*oral treatment: F_(1,37) = 7.43, p = 0.01, pairwise comparisons: VEH vs. THC p = 0.011; THC vs. THC-NAC p = 0.002). h Radial plot depicting the percentage of animals displaying preference towards a novel rat (score > 0.55; purple). Note the inverted pattern in THC, but not in the THC-NAC group. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. i Schematic summary of the novel object recognition (NOR) procedure. j Only THC-treated rats failed to recognize novel objects (n: VEH = 10, THC = 9, VEH-NAC = 12; THC-NAC = 12). Paired t-tests for familiar vs. novel object: VEH: t₍₉₎ = −5.861, p < 0.001; THC: t₍₈₎ = 0.603, p = 0.563; VEH-NAC: t₍₁₁₎ = −5.446, p < 0.001; THC-NAC: t₍₁₁₎ = −4.465, p < 0.001. k Recognition memory was significantly impaired only in the THC-exposure group. Two-way ANOVA: IP treatment F_(1,39) = 8.309, p = 0.006; oral treatment: F_(1,39) = 11.601, p = 0.002 and IP*oral treatment: F_(1,39) = 5.291, p = 0.027; pairwise comparisons: THC vs. VEH: p = 0.001; THC-NAC vs. VEH: p = 0.664; THC vs. THC-NAC: p < 0.001. l No differences in total exploration time were observed across groups. Two-way ANOVA: IP treatment: F_(1,39) = 0.001, p = 0.97; oral treatment: F_(1,39) = 0.626, p = 0.433; IP*oral treatment: F_(1,39) = 0.282, p = 0.599. m Percentage of rats displaying novelty recognition score below 0.55 was higher only in the THC group, but not in NAC treated groups. n Schematic of the object recognition in temporal order (n: VEH = 23, THC = 22, VEH-NAC = 11; THC-NAC = 12). o Only the THC rats did not prefer the older object. Paired t-tests: VEH: t₍₂₂₎ = 3.986, p < 0.001; THC: t₍₂₁₎ = 0.25, p = 0.805; NAC: t₍₁₀₎ = 3.123, p = 0.011; THC-NAC: t₍₁₁₎ = 3.364, p = 0.006. p Recognition score was lower in THC rats. Two-way ANOVA: IP treatment: F_(1,64) = 4.507; p = 0.038; oral treatment: F_(1,64) = 7.435, p = 0.008; IP*oral treatment: F_(1,64) = 0.747, p = 0.391; pairwise comparisons: THC vs. VEH: p = 0.013; THC vs. THC-NAC: p = 0.039. q All rats displayed similar exploration times. Two-way ANOVA: IP treatment: F_(1,64) = 0.028; p = 0.869; oral treatment: F_(1,64) = 1.047, p = 0.31; IP*oral treatment: F_(1,64) = 0.088, p = 0.768. r Radial plot capturing the inverted percentage of animals with impaired recency recognition in THC group (score < 0.55).