Emotion labeling paradigm to test whether or not the neural mechanisms mediating irritability vary between BP and DMDD. Techniques: Through fMRI, seventy one youths (24 DMDD, 25 BD, 22 HV) carried out an eventrelated encounter emotion labeling endeavor with delighted, fearful, and offended faces of different depth. In all topics, trait irritability was characterised dimensionally to the Affective Reactivity Index (ARI). We tested, not simply major consequences of analysis (BP, DMDD, HV) and ARI on neural exercise, and also diagnosis x ARI interactions in a very wholebrain corrected evaluation. Outcomes: ARI scores didn’t vary between DMDD and BD, and there have been no behavioral discrepancies among the groups inAbstractsSthe scanner. We uncovered a trait x analysis conversation while in the amygdala, where irritability correlated with neural activity for all feelings in DMDD, but only for fearful faces in BD. In addition, higher irritability was linked with bigger amygdala activity in reaction to refined fearful faces in BD, but a lot less amygdala activity in DMDD. Other temporal, parietal, and occipital locations showed positive correlations in between irritability and Bold response to delicate destructive emotion faces in DMDD, although not BD. Conclusions: Though irritability severity did not vary concerning DMDD and BD, the neural mechanisms mediating irritability did vary considerably amongst the two affected person teams. These facts problem the RDoC assumption that, across diagnoses, neural mechanisms mediating a specific trait are necessarily the same. Clearly, this assumption requires being analyzed for other characteristics and throughout other diagnoses. Also, the current findings Pub Releases ID:http://results.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/e-iwy042616.php add to present longitudinal, familial, and neuroimaging info suggesting that DMDD (characterized by long-term irritability, with out manic episodes) and BP (characterized by episodic mania with or without the need of persistent irritability in between episodes) are distinct phenotypes. Disclosures: Absolutely nothing to disclose.lateral prefrontal cortex. Within these regions, people ended up much more more likely to clearly show increased activation in limbic and medial temporal locations and decreased activation from the thalamus as well as lateral prefrontal cortex. The impact of RDoC domains was substantial for subcortical regions (amygdala, hippocampus, putamen, nucleus accumbens) but not in cortical areas apart from the medial prefrontal cortex and frontal operculum. Conclusions: These effects provide proof in guidance of the popular purposeful topography across a number of psychiatric conditions. A product assuming disorderspecific pathogenesis would have resulted in negligible or no transdiagnostic overlap in useful architecture. As a substitute, the disordergeneral map identified indicates that some mind locations are reasonably much more 50-23-7 Epigenetic Reader Domain vulnerable and therefore prone to be impacted by a range of pathogenetic mechanisms. Disclosures: Nothing to disclose.Panel 31. Caffeine Interactions with Dopamine in Adolescence: An Unappreciated Possibility for Obesity and Addiction 31.1 Habit Vulnerability Qualities Subsequent Adolescent Caffeine Use Ryan Bachtell University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, United StatesBackground: Caffeine is easily the most frequently utilized psychoactive substance around the globe, and usage by youngsters and adolescents has risen substantially recently. Prior scientific studies have found that caffeine ingestion in grownups is positively correlated with compound use diseases, improved illicit drug use and increases in nervousness. We have lately shown that adolescent caffeine consum.