RHOA signaling defects result in impaired axon guidance in iPSC-derived neurons from patients with tuberous sclerosis complex

Patients with Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) show aberrant wiring of neuronal connections formed during development which may contribute to symptoms of TSC, such as intellectual disabilities, autism, and epilepsy. Yet models examining the molecular basis for axonal guidance defects in developing human neurons have not been developed. Here, we generate human induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC) lines from a patient with TSC and genetically engineer counterparts and isogenic controls. By differentiating hiPSCs, we show that control neurons respond to canonical guidance cues as predicted. Conversely, neurons with heterozygous loss of TSC2 exhibit reduced responses to several repulsive cues and defective axon guidance. While TSC2 is a known key negative regulator of MTOR-dependent protein synthesis, we find that TSC2 signaled through MTOR-independent RHOA in growth cones. Our results suggest that neural network connectivity defects in patients with TSC may result from defects in RHOA-mediated regulation of cytoskeletal dynamics during neuronal development.


Reporting Summary
Nature Research wishes to improve the reproducibility of the work that we publish. This form provides structure for consistency and transparency in reporting. For further information on Nature Research policies, seeAuthors & Referees and theEditorial Policy Checklist .

Statistics
For all statistical analyses, confirm that the following items are present in the figure legend, table legend, main text, or Methods section.
n/a Confirmed The exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, given as a discrete number and unit of measurement A statement on whether measurements were taken from distinct samples or whether the same sample was measured repeatedly The statistical test(s) used AND whether they are one-or two-sided Only common tests should be described solely by name; describe more complex techniques in the Methods section.
A description of all covariates tested A description of any assumptions or corrections, such as tests of normality and adjustment for multiple comparisons A full description of the statistical parameters including central tendency (e.g. means) or other basic estimates (e.g. regression coefficient) AND variation (e.g. standard deviation) or associated estimates of uncertainty (e.g. confidence intervals) For null hypothesis testing, the test statistic (e.g. F, t, r) with confidence intervals, effect sizes, degrees of freedom and P value noted Give P values as exact values whenever suitable.

For Bayesian analysis, information on the choice of priors and Markov chain Monte Carlo settings
For hierarchical and complex designs, identification of the appropriate level for tests and full reporting of outcomes Estimates of effect sizes (e.g. Cohen's d, Pearson's r), indicating how they were calculated Our web collection on statistics for biologists contains articles on many of the points above.

Software and code
Policy information about availability of computer code Data collection

Data analysis
For manuscripts utilizing custom algorithms or software that are central to the research but not yet described in published literature, software must be made available to editors/reviewers. We strongly encourage code deposition in a community repository (e.g. GitHub). See the Nature Research guidelines for submitting code & software for further information.

Data
Policy information about availability of data All manuscripts must include a data availability statement. This statement should provide the following information, where applicable: -Accession codes, unique identifiers, or web links for publicly available datasets -A list of figures that have associated raw data -A description of any restrictions on data availability Field-specific reporting Please select the one below that is the best fit for your research. If you are not sure, read the appropriate sections before making your selection. Typically for live extension/collapse and fixed immunofluorescence experiments, we imaged a minimum of 10 growth cones from four or more different neurospheres (>40 growth cones), pooling data together from two separate differentiations per genotype. For stripe assays, experiments were quantified from a minimum of 10 ROIs parallel to a minimum of five neurospheres on a minimum of three separate stripe substrates from two separate differentiations. A 95% confidence interval was selected as significant. No statistical methods were used to predetermine sample size.
No data were excluded.
Experiments were replicated using a minimum of four neurospheres from two independent differentiations. Similar results were observed upon replication. Data from individual clones were pooled for genotype comparisons except where noted. The experiments in this manuscript were matched to within ten passages. Key experiments were repeated at early (p18-33, depending on the cell line) and late (p50-60) passages, confirming phenotype consistency across passage number. Individual clone information is included within the Source Data file.
Randomization was not relevant to this study, as groups differed only by genotype and no discrimination was made between them -each was tested independently in all experiments.
Investigators were blinded to experimental groups during image acquisition in preliminary experiments, as well as to experimental groups during image analysis.