25294, Coahuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, caohuila, Mexico; caohuila, caohuila  
Occasionally, the plant defenses are not sufficient in domesticated crops, and this represents a disadvantage because of their reduced capacity to respond efficiently to biotic stress in comparison with wild relative plants [6]. Wild tomato relatives produce abundant VOC-related defense compared to domesticated varieties [7]. Other studies demonstrated that the attraction of predators was reduced during the domestication process as compared with wild relatives [8]. The VOCs released by wild tomatoes are less attractive and can repel the pest (tobacco whitelfy), as compared to domesticated tomatoes [9]. Although tomato plants originated in the Andean region of South America, the original site of domestication is undefined [10]. However, it is assumed that Mexico is the domestication site and Peru is the diversity center [11]. Tomato (_Solanum lycopersicum_) is an economically important crop and it is a model system for research. Among tomato models, a miniature dwarf cultivar Micro-Tom has been extensively studied for the last 10 years. Micro-Tom has a small plant size, a short life cycle and a genome size of 950 Mb, and it represents an interesting genomic tool [12; 13]. On the other hand, wild tomato relative (_Solanum pennelli_) contains a larger genome size (1200 Mb) compared to commercial tomato cultivars (approximately 950 Mb). This represents a dramatic genetic erosion in domesticated cultivars [14]. Therefore, the domesticated tomatoes are susceptible to phytopathogens and phytophagous insects, and resistance alleles are present in wild tomato relatives [15]. Under field and greenhouse conditions, tomato crops (_Solanum lycopersicum_) are often exposed to phytophagous insects that impair the crop development and reduce yields. The tomato psyllid, _Bactericera cockerelli_ (Hemiptera: Triozidae), is considered an important pest in the southeast USA and northeast Mexico and it attacks solanaceous crops, mainly tomato and potato (_Solanum tuberosum_ L.) [16; 17; 18]. In North America and New Zealand, _B. cockerelli_ is able to transmit the phloem-obligated proteobacteria _Candidatus_ Liberbacter solanacearum (CaLso) [19]. _B. cockerelli_-CaLso in potato crops caused losses of more than $25 million between 2003 and 2005 in Texas [19; 20]. However, regarding tomato defenses, CaLso induced early responses (1 week) mediated by SA, JA, and ET signaling pathways, while late responses (2 and 4 weeks) downregulated photosynthesis-associated genes, and genes involved in carbohydrate metabolism were upregulated [21]. In agreement with [PERSON] et al. [22], the inoculation of CaLso in the absence of its vector host suppressed the accumulation of defense transcripts (PR1 and AOS mRNAs). These results suggest that the pathogens manipulate plant defenses to benefit themselves. To explore the feeding behavior of _B. cockerelli_ on tomato plants, many factors are required for their host plant choice [23]. Tomato plants respond differently to herbivore damage by _B. cockerelli_. VOC emissions between healthy plants, and the feeding of _B. cockerelli_ nymphs exhibit several changes in the blends emitted by the plants evaluated [24]. These emissions from healthy tomato plants also constitute an important signal for psyllids preference. For example, in free-choice assays performed with _B. cockerelli_ adults in three varieties of tomato, domesticated plants markedly increased _B. cockerelli_ oviposition, and a minor degree occurred in Micro-Tom and wild varieties [25]. These three varieties showed differences in size and branching during growth in pots (Figure 1).