Emotion labeling paradigm to check whether or not the neural mechanisms mediating irritability differ involving BP and DMDD. Techniques: All through fMRI, 71 youths (24 DMDD, 25 BD, 22 HV) performed an eventrelated confront emotion labeling undertaking with joyful, fearful, and angry faces of varying intensity. In all topics, trait irritability was characterised dimensionally around the Affective Reactivity Index (ARI). We tested, don’t just main results of prognosis (BP, DMDD, HV) and ARI on neural action, but will also analysis x ARI interactions inside of a wholebrain corrected assessment. Success: ARI scores didn’t vary concerning DMDD and BD, and there were no behavioral discrepancies between groups inAbstractsSthe scanner. We uncovered a trait x analysis conversation within the amygdala, wherever irritability correlated with neural action for all emotions in DMDD, but just for fearful faces in BD. Also, higher irritability was involved with larger amygdala activity in response to refined fearful faces in BD, but fewer amygdala exercise in DMDD. Other temporal, parietal, and occipital locations showed optimistic correlations amongst irritability and Bold reaction to subtle adverse emotion faces in DMDD, although not BD. Conclusions: Even though irritability severity didn’t vary involving DMDD and BD, the neural mechanisms mediating irritability did differ significantly amongst the two affected person teams. These info problem the RDoC assumption that, throughout diagnoses, neural mechanisms mediating a specific trait are always the identical. Plainly, this assumption needs being tested for other characteristics and across other diagnoses. Furthermore, the existing conclusions Pub Releases ID:http://results.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/e-iwy042616.php insert to existing longitudinal, familial, and neuroimaging information suggesting that DMDD (characterized by chronic irritability, with out manic episodes) and BP (characterised by episodic mania with or devoid of serious irritability amongst episodes) are distinct phenotypes. Disclosures: Almost nothing to disclose.lateral prefrontal cortex. Within these regions, patients have been more more likely to present elevated activation in limbic and medial temporal regions and lowered activation within the thalamus and the lateral prefrontal cortex. The impact of RDoC domains was important for 152121-47-6 web subcortical regions (amygdala, hippocampus, putamen, nucleus accumbens) but not in cortical locations excluding the medial prefrontal cortex and frontal operculum. Conclusions: These outcomes present proof in assistance of the typical purposeful topography throughout several psychiatric problems. A model assuming disorderspecific pathogenesis would have resulted in nominal or no transdiagnostic overlap in practical architecture. As a substitute, the disordergeneral map identified implies that some mind locations are rather more vulnerable and so very likely to be afflicted by a range of pathogenetic mechanisms. Disclosures: Nothing to reveal.Panel 31. Caffeine Interactions with Dopamine in Adolescence: An Unappreciated Hazard for Obesity and Habit 31.1 Dependancy Vulnerability Features Subsequent Adolescent Caffeine Usage Ryan Bachtell College of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, United StatesBackground: Caffeine is among the most frequently utilized psychoactive substance globally, and use by children and adolescents has risen dramatically in recent times. Earlier reports have found that caffeine ingestion in adults is positively correlated with substance use conditions, improved illicit drug use and raises in panic. We’ve got not too long ago shown that adolescent caffeine consum.