Emotion labeling paradigm to check whether the neural mechanisms mediating irritability vary concerning BP and DMDD. Methods: In the course of fMRI, seventy one youths (24 DMDD, 25 BD, 22 HV) executed an eventrelated face emotion labeling process with satisfied, fearful, and offended faces of varying depth. In all subjects, trait irritability was characterized dimensionally around the Affective Reactivity Index (ARI). We tested, not simply most important consequences of analysis (BP, DMDD, HV) and ARI on neural exercise, but additionally prognosis x ARI interactions in the wholebrain corrected evaluation. Final results: ARI scores did not vary concerning DMDD and BD, and there have been no behavioral discrepancies amongst teams inAbstractsSthe scanner. We identified a trait x diagnosis conversation from the amygdala, where irritability correlated with neural exercise for all thoughts in DMDD, but only for fearful faces in BD. What’s more, increased irritability was involved with better amygdala action in reaction to subtle fearful faces in BD, but significantly less amygdala exercise in DMDD. Other temporal, parietal, and occipital regions confirmed good correlations involving irritability and Bold reaction to refined detrimental emotion faces in DMDD, but not BD. Conclusions: While irritability severity did not vary between DMDD and BD, the neural mechanisms mediating irritability did differ considerably among the 2 patient groups. These information problem the RDoC assumption that, throughout diagnoses, neural mechanisms mediating a certain trait are always exactly the same. Evidently, this assumption needs for being examined for other qualities and throughout other diagnoses. On top of that, the existing conclusions Pub Releases ID:http://results.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/e-iwy042616.php increase to present longitudinal, familial, and neuroimaging facts suggesting that DMDD (2226-96-2 Purity & Documentation characterised by persistent irritability, devoid of manic episodes) and BP (characterised by episodic mania with or without serious irritability concerning episodes) are distinctive phenotypes. Disclosures: Absolutely nothing to reveal.lateral prefrontal cortex. Inside of these areas, patients were being much more likely to clearly show increased activation in limbic and medial temporal regions and lessened activation during the thalamus plus the lateral prefrontal cortex. The influence of RDoC domains was substantial for subcortical areas (amygdala, hippocampus, putamen, nucleus accumbens) although not in cortical regions except the medial prefrontal cortex and frontal operculum. Conclusions: These outcomes give proof in assistance of the popular purposeful topography across multiple psychiatric ailments. A model assuming disorderspecific pathogenesis might have resulted in nominal or no transdiagnostic overlap in practical architecture. As a substitute, the disordergeneral map identified suggests that some brain areas are somewhat more susceptible and therefore more likely to be impacted by a variety of pathogenetic mechanisms. Disclosures: Almost nothing to reveal.Panel 31. Caffeine Interactions with Dopamine in Adolescence: An Unappreciated Possibility for Obesity and Addiction 31.1 Addiction Vulnerability Traits Following Adolescent Caffeine Use Ryan Bachtell University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, United StatesBackground: Caffeine is considered the most commonly applied psychoactive substance globally, and usage by children and adolescents has risen substantially in recent years. Past scientific studies have found that caffeine intake in grown ups is positively correlated with material use disorders, improved illicit drug use and boosts in anxiousness. We’ve recently shown that adolescent caffeine consum.