## 2 Results
The phenolic levels per treatment are presented in Figure 3. The expressed abundance of some of the nine phenolic compounds were genotype-dependent as well as treatment-specific in a manner that suggests that the upregulation of these compounds is influenced by the insect and the interaction with the bacteria, that there exists basal resistance in the susceptible CM, that genotype-specific constitutive resistance factors may be ubiquitous in tomato plants. Finally, different phenolics widely associated with plant defense may have antagonistic roles in susceptible versus resistant plant genotypes. For instance, both 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, p-coumaric acid, and rutin (Figure 3C,F,H, respectively) mainly were genotypically influenced. The abundances of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid and rutin were not significantly different under all treatments in the susceptible CM, but were significantly lower in the resistant LA3952 under all treatments, suggesting that 4-hydroxybenzoic acid and rutin may be playing antagonistic roles in the resistance against the insect in the presence or absence of the bacterial pathogen, and can be selected against in developing resistance. Similar but opposite accumulation patterns were observed for the p-coumaric acid (Figure 3F), where the constitutive abundance in CM  
Figure 3: The levels of phenolics in the susceptible CastleMart (CM) and resistant RIL LA3952 (LA) tomato genotypes according to treatments, mock control, TPP-Lso(\(-\)), and TPP-Lso(\(+\)). **(A)** gallic acid, **(B)** protocatechuic acid, **(C)** 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, **(D)** phthalic acid, **(E)** chlorogenic acid, **(F)** p-coumaric acid, **(G)** ferulic acid, **(H)** rutin, and **(I)** naringenin. The results are presented as mean \(\pm\) S.E., *, **, and *** denote significant difference at \(p\leq 0.05\), \(\leq 0.01\), and \(\leq 0.001\), respectively; ns, not significant. The means were separation by the [PERSON]’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test. was significantly lower than the constitutive abundance in LA3952 while within-genotype differences remained insignificant, suggesting that p-coumaric acid may be important in improving resistance. More dramatically, p-coumaric acid was not detected in the CM challenged with TPP_Lso(+), suggesting that its production was severely suppressed specifically in the presence of the pathogen Lso in the susceptible CM. Defense Hormones and Signaling Molecules Show Constitutive Abundance Determined by the Presence of TPP and/or Lso in Susceptible and Resistant Tomato  
A total of six plant hormones zeatin, gibberellic acid, indole acetic acid, abscisicic acid, salicylic acid, jasmonic acid, and other three plant signaling compounds, 12-oxophyllotonic acid (OPDA), melatonin, and serotonin from tomato plants were analyzed using UPLC/ESI-HR-QTOFMS (Table S2). Just as observed with the phenolics, the abundance of the hormone, abscisicic acid (ABA, Figure 4E), and signaling molecules melatonin (Figure 4D), serotonin (Figure 4G), and 12-oxo-phytodienoic acid (Figure 4I) showed detectable but not statistically different abundance between genotypes or treatments, suggesting their constitutive levels are not influenced by the TPP in the presence or absence of Lso in the 48 h after inoculation. Figure 4: The levels of hormones and other signaling molecules in insect-susceptible CastleMart (CM) and -resistant RIL LA3952 (LA). (**A**) zeatin, (**B**) gibberellic acid, (**C**) indole-3-acetic acid, (**D**) melatonin, (**E**) abscisic acid, (**F**) salicylic acid, (**G**) serotonin, (**H**) jasmonic acid, and (**I**) 12-oxo-phytodienoic acid. The results are expressed as mean \(\pm\) S.E. *, **, and *** denote significant at \(p\leq 0.05\), \(\leq 0.01\), and \(\leq 0.001\), respectively; ns, not significant.