Chicken Coccidiosis Poop: Diagnostic Indicators and Clinical Significance in Poultry

Introduction

Coccidiosis remains one of the most economically significant parasitic diseases affecting commercial poultry operations worldwide. The disease is caused by apicomplexan protozoa of the genus Eimeria, which exhibit strict host specificity and tissue tropism within the avian intestinal tract [1, 2]. In chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus), seven recognized species of Eimeria (E. acervulina, E. brunetti, E. maxima, E. mitis, E. necatrix, E. praecox, and E. tenella) produce characteristic pathological lesions and corresponding alterations in fecal output [1, 3]. The examination of chicken feces, commonly referred to as "coccidiosis poop," provides a noninvasive window into the dynamics of infection, parasite burden, and flock-level immunity. This article provides an exhaustive review of the diagnostic indicators present in fecal material from chickens infected with Eimeria spp., the clinical significance of these findings, and the molecular and biophysical methods used to characterize them.

Pathophysiology of Coccidiosis and Fecal Output Alterations

Intestinal Epithelial Disruption

Eimeria species undergo a complex life cycle involving asexual multiplication (schizogony) followed by sexual reproduction (gametogony) within enterocytes [2, 4]. The rupture of host cells during meront release and oocyst shedding causes extensive destruction of the intestinal epithelium [53]. This damage directly compromises the absorptive and secretory functions of the gut, leading to alterations in fecal consistency, color, and composition [5, 53]. The specific region of the intestine affected determines the macroscopic appearance of the feces. For example, E. tenella parasitizes the ceca, resulting in the passage of frank blood and cecal cores, whereas E. acervulina and E. maxima affect the duodenum and jejunum, producing mucoid or watery diarrhea [1, 5].

Fecal Color and Consistency

The clinical presentation of coccidiosis poop varies by species and severity of infection. E. tenella infection is classically associated with hemorrhagic cecal droppings containing bright red blood or dark, clotted blood mixed with fecal material [53]. E. necatrix infection, which affects the mid-intestine, can produce bloody or mucoid feces, although the lesions are often more pronounced at necropsy than in the droppings themselves [1]. E. maxima infection typically yields orange-tinged, mucoid feces, while E. acervulina infection results in watery, frothy droppings with increased moisture content [5]. E. brunetti infection, localized to the lower intestine and rectum, can cause tenesmus and the passage of mucus-laden feces [1]. These gross alterations, while suggestive, are not pathognomonic and require laboratory confirmation for definitive diagnosis [6].

Oocyst Morphology and Quantification in Feces

Microscopic Identification

The definitive diagnostic indicator of coccidiosis in chicken feces is the detection of Eimeria oocysts. Oocysts are shed in the feces following the completion of the endogenous life cycle, typically beginning 4 to 7 days post-infection depending on the species [1, 7]. Standard diagnostic protocols involve flotation techniques using saturated sodium chloride or sucrose solutions to concentrate oocysts from fecal samples [8, 1]. Oocysts are then visualized under light microscopy at 100x to 400x magnification. Species identification is based on oocyst morphology, including size, shape, color, and the presence or absence of a micropyle or oocyst residuum [1, 3]. For example, E. maxima oocysts are large (approximately 30 x 20 micrometers) and ovoid with a golden-brown color, while E. acervulina oocysts are smaller (approximately 18 x 14 micrometers) and ellipsoidal [1]. E. tenella oocysts are broadly ovoid and measure approximately 23 x 19 micrometers [1]. However, morphological identification requires considerable expertise and can be confounded by overlapping size ranges between species [3].

Quantitative Oocyst Counts

Quantification of oocyst shedding is performed using a McMaster counting chamber or a modified Wisconsin technique [8, 1]. Results are expressed as oocysts per gram (OPG) of feces. OPG values are critical for assessing the intensity of infection and the effectiveness of control programs [1, 7]. In commercial broiler flocks, litter oocyst counts are used to monitor vaccine take and the development of immunity [7]. High OPG values in litter, particularly during the second and third weeks of life, may indicate inadequate immunity or failure of anticoccidial programs [1, 7]. Conversely, very low OPG values in vaccinated flocks may suggest poor vaccine cycling and insufficient immune stimulation [7]. It is important to note that OPG values can vary widely due to factors such as fecal water content, diurnal shedding patterns, and the crowding effect, where high parasite burdens limit further replication due to host cell availability [2].

Molecular Diagnostic Approaches

Conventional and Quantitative PCR

Molecular methods have largely supplanted microscopy for species-specific diagnosis and quantification of Eimeria in fecal samples [6, 9]. Conventional PCR assays targeting the internal transcribed spacer 1 (ITS-1) region of ribosomal DNA allow for the differentiation of the seven chicken Eimeria species [6]. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) provides the additional advantage of precise quantification of parasite DNA, which correlates with oocyst burden [6, 9]. Validation studies have demonstrated that qPCR assays for Eimeria spp. in fresh droppings exhibit high sensitivity and specificity, with detection limits as low as 1 to 10 oocysts per gram of feces [6]. These assays are particularly useful for detecting subclinical infections and for monitoring the dynamics of mixed-species infections in field samples [6, 9].

Nanoparticle-Assisted PCR

Emerging technologies such as nanoparticle-assisted PCR (nanoPCR) have been developed to enhance the sensitivity of molecular detection for coccidian parasites [10]. While originally validated for Cryptosporidium spp., the principles of nanoPCR, which utilize gold nanoparticles to improve thermal conductivity and amplification efficiency, are directly applicable to Eimeria detection in poultry feces [10]. This approach may reduce the detection threshold further and improve diagnostic accuracy in samples with low parasite burdens.

Molecular Characterization of Parasite Genes

Beyond detection, molecular characterization of specific Eimeria genes from fecal DNA extracts provides insights into parasite biology and population genetics. For example, the 60S ribosomal protein L12 gene of E. tenella has been characterized and used for phylogenetic analyses [11]. Similarly, the rhomboid gene has been targeted in recombinant vaccine studies, and its detection in field isolates can inform vaccine efficacy assessments [12]. The small subunit ribosomal RNA gene has been used to resolve taxonomic ambiguities, such as the distinction between E. mitis and E. mivati [3]. These molecular markers, when applied to fecal samples, enable high-resolution epidemiological surveillance.

Immunological and Biochemical Indicators in Feces

Fecal Antibody Detection

The local immune response to Eimeria infection includes the production of antigen-specific antibodies, particularly IgA, in the intestinal mucosa [13, 52]. These antibodies can be detected in fecal extracts using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). Studies have shown that E. maxima infection elicits significant levels of antigen-specific antibodies in intestinal secretions, which correlate with protective immunity [13]. Fecal antibody detection offers a noninvasive method for assessing mucosal immune status in vaccinated or naturally infected flocks [13].

Markers of Tissue Damage

Infection with Eimeria spp. leads to increased levels of host-derived molecules in the feces due to epithelial cell destruction. For instance, E. acervulina infection elevates plasma and muscle 3-methylhistidine levels, a marker of muscle protein catabolism, which may also be detectable in fecal material [5]. Additionally, the presence of blood, as detected by guaiac-based or immunochemical fecal occult blood tests, can serve as a quantitative indicator of hemorrhagic coccidiosis, particularly in E. tenella and E. necatrix infections [53].

Differential Diagnosis from Other Enteric Pathogens

Fecal examination for coccidiosis must be interpreted in the context of other pathogens that produce similar clinical signs. Bacterial enteritides caused by Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., and Clostridium perfringens (necrotic enteritis) can produce diarrhea and poor growth, but these conditions lack the characteristic oocysts on fecal flotation [57, 60, 136]. Viral infections such as avian influenza and Newcastle disease can also cause enteric signs, but are typically accompanied by respiratory or neurological signs [65, 103]. Parasitic infections with Cryptosporidium baileyi or Histomonas meleagridis may produce similar fecal alterations, but the former yields smaller oocysts (4-5 micrometers) and the latter is associated with cecal and hepatic lesions [14, 15, 16]. The presence of nematode eggs, such as those of Ascaridia galli or Heterakis gallinarum, can also be identified concurrently during fecal flotation [8].

Clinical Significance and Flock-Level Interpretation

Subclinical versus Clinical Infection

The diagnostic significance of coccidiosis poop extends beyond the identification of patent infections. Subclinical coccidiosis, characterized by low-level oocyst shedding without overt diarrhea, is a major cause of production losses in broiler flocks [1, 17]. In such cases, fecal OPG values may be moderately elevated (e.g., 10,000 to 100,000 OPG) without visible changes in fecal consistency [1]. These subclinical infections impair feed conversion ratio, weight gain, and uniformity, and they predispose birds to necrotic enteritis through disruption of the intestinal barrier [17, 18]. Therefore, routine fecal monitoring using qPCR or OPG counts is recommended for detecting subclinical infections before production losses become apparent [6, 17].

Monitoring Vaccine Efficacy

Live anticoccidial vaccines, which contain attenuated or non-attenuated Eimeria oocysts, rely on controlled cycling of the vaccine strains in the litter to stimulate protective immunity [19, 20, 7]. Fecal and litter oocyst monitoring is essential to confirm that vaccine strains are replicating adequately. Low oocyst counts in the first two weeks post-vaccination may indicate poor vaccine take due to interference from maternally derived antibodies, concurrent disease, or improper vaccine administration [19, 7]. Conversely, excessively high oocyst counts may indicate vaccine breakdown or the introduction of field strains [1, 7].

Anticoccidial Resistance Monitoring

The widespread use of ionophore and chemical anticoccidials has led to the development of resistance in Eimeria field isolates [1, 21]. Fecal oocyst counts, combined with species identification, are used to monitor resistance. A lack of reduction in OPG following treatment with a specific anticoccidial suggests resistance [1, 22]. Molecular markers associated with resistance, such as mutations in the mitochondrial genome or in genes encoding drug targets, can be detected directly from fecal DNA extracts, providing a rapid resistance profiling tool [1].

Integrated Diagnostic Workflow

The following Mermaid diagram illustrates a recommended diagnostic workflow for evaluating chicken coccidiosis through fecal analysis.

flowchart TD
    A[Fecal Sample Collection] --> B[Gross Examination]
    B --> C{Blood or Mucus Present?}
    C -->|Yes| D[Suspect E. tenella or E. necatrix]
    C -->|No| E[Suspect Other Species or Subclinical]
    D --> F[Fecal Flotation / Microscopy]
    E --> F
    F --> G["Oocyst Quantification (OPG")]
    G --> H{OPG > Threshold?}
    H -->|Yes| I[Species Identification via PCR]
    H -->|No| J[Consider Subclinical Infection]
    I --> K[Anticoccidial Sensitivity Testing]
    J --> L[Monitor Flock Performance]
    K --> M[Adjust Control Program]
    L --> N[Re-sample in 3-5 Days]

Conclusion

The examination of chicken feces for diagnostic indicators of coccidiosis remains a cornerstone of poultry health management. Gross alterations in fecal color and consistency provide initial clinical clues, but definitive diagnosis requires microscopic or molecular confirmation of Eimeria oocysts. Quantitative oocyst counts and species-specific PCR assays enable precise assessment of infection intensity, vaccine efficacy, and anticoccidial resistance. The integration of these diagnostic modalities into routine flock monitoring programs is essential for the effective control of coccidiosis and the optimization of poultry production.

References

[1] Jenkins MC, Parker C, Ritter D. Eimeria Oocyst Concentrations and Species Composition in Litter from Commercial Broiler Farms During Anticoccidial Drug or Live Eimeria Oocyst Vaccine Control Programs. Avian Dis. 2017. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28665719/

[2] Johnston WT, Shirley MW, Smith AL et al. Modelling host cell availability and the crowding effect in Eimeria infections. Int J Parasitol. 2001. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11429170/

[3] Vrba V, Poplstein M, Pakandl M. The discovery of the two types of small subunit ribosomal RNA gene in Eimeria mitis contests the existence of E. mivati as an independent species. Vet Parasitol. 2011. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21767912/

[4] Bumstead JM, Topham SJ, Tomley FM. Inhibition of the development of Eimeria tenella in cultured bovine kidney cells by a soluble factor produced by peripheral blood lymphocytes from immune chickens. Parasitology. 1998. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9695099/

[5] Fetterer RH, Allen PC. Eimeria acervulina infection elevates plasma and muscle 3-methylhistidine levels in chickens. J Parasitol. 2000. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10958457/

[6] Peek HW, Ter Veen C, Dijkman R et al. Validation of a quantitative Eimeria spp. PCR for fresh droppings of broiler chickens. Avian Pathol. 2017. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28580863/

[7] Williams RB, Johnson JD, Andrews SJ. Anticoccidial vaccination of broiler chickens in various management programmes: relationship between oocyst accumulation in litter and the development of protective immunity. Vet Res Commun. 2000. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10868549/

[8] Bethonico Terra MT, Pacheco WJ, Harrison M et al. A Survey of Coccidia and Nematodes in Pastured Poultry in the State of Georgia. Avian Dis. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34412455/

[9] Nolan MJ, Tomley FM, Kaiser P et al. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) for Eimeria tenella replication-Implications for experimental refinement and animal welfare. Parasitol Int. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26141544/

[10] Yin YL, Wang Y, Lai P et al. Establishment and preliminary application of nanoparticle-assisted PCR assay for detection of Cryptosporidium spp. Parasitol Res. 2021. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33649965/

[11] Liang S, Zhu S, Zhao Q et al. Molecular characterization of 60S ribosomal protein L12 of E. tenella. Exp Parasitol. 2020. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32781092/

[12] Yang G, Li J, Zhang X et al. Eimeria tenella: construction of a recombinant fowlpox virus expressing rhomboid gene and its protective efficacy against homologous infection. Exp Parasitol. 2008. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18261729/

[13] Yun CH, Lillehoj HS, Zhu J et al. Kinetic differences in intestinal and systemic interferon-gamma and antigen-specific antibodies in chickens experimentally infected with Eimeria maxima. Avian Dis. 2000. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10879910/

[14] Banda Z, Nichols RA, Grimason AM et al. Cryptosporidium infection in non-human hosts in Malawi. Onderstepoort J Vet Res. 2009. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21344786/

[15] Hao YX, Yang JM, He C et al. Reduced serologic response to avian influenza vaccine in specific-pathogen-free chicks inoculated with Cryptosporidium baileyi. Avian Dis. 2008. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19166065/

[16] Hornok S, Széll Z, Shibalova TA et al. Study on the course of Cryptosporidium baileyi infection in chickens treated with interleukin-1 or indomethacin. Acta Vet Hung. 1999. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10344081/

[17] Hamzic E, Bed'Hom B, Juin H et al. Large-scale investigation of the parameters in response to Eimeria maxima challenge in broilers. J Anim Sci. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26020204/

[18] Ritzi MM, Abdelrahman W, Mohnl M et al. Effects of probiotics and application methods on performance and response of broiler chickens to an Eimeria challenge. Poult Sci. 2014. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25214558/

[19] Cai H, Luo S, Zhou Q et al. Effects of Bacillus subtilis and coccidiosis vaccine on growth indices and intestinal microbiota of broilers. Poult Sci. 2022. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36095864/

[20] Li GQ, Kanu S, Xiao SM et al. Responses of chickens vaccinated with a live attenuated multi-valent ionophore-tolerant Eimeria vaccine. Vet Parasitol. 2005. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15845272/

[21] Chapman HD, Hacker AB. The effects of shuttle programs upon the growth of broilers and the development of immunity to eimeria species. Poult Sci. 1993. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8479951/

[22] Mathis GF, Froyman R, Kennedy T. Coccidiosis control by administering toltrazuril in the drinking water for a 2-day period. Vet Parasitol. 2004. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15110398/

[23] Dubey JP, Laurin E, Kwowk OC. Validation of the modified agglutination test for the detection of Toxoplasma gondii in free-range chickens by using cat and mouse bioassay. Parasitology. 2016. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26625933/

[24] Dubey JP, Lehmann T, Lautner F et al. Toxoplasmosis in sentinel chickens (Gallus domesticus) in New England farms: Seroconversion, distribution of tissue cysts in brain, heart, and skeletal muscle by bioassay in mice and cats. Vet Parasitol. 2015. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26391819/

[25] Rathinam T, Gadde U, Chapman HD. Sericea Lespedeza has no anticoccidial effect when included in the diet of chickens infected with three species of Eimeria. Vet Parasitol. 2014. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24594212/

[26] Yin G, Qin M, Liu X et al. Interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay as a tool to study T cell responses to Eimeria tenella infection in chickens. Poult Sci. 2013. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23776262/

[27] Ola-Fadunsin SD, Ademola IO. Direct effects of Moringa oleifera Lam (Moringaceae) acetone leaf extract on broiler chickens naturally infected with Eimeria species. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2013. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23440591/

[28] Tilahun G, Tiao N, Ferreira LR et al. Prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii from free-range chickens (Gallus domesticus) from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J Parasitol. 2013. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23259902/

[29] Gonçalves IN, Uzêda RS, Lacerda GA et al. Molecular frequency and isolation of cyst-forming coccidia from free ranging chickens in Bahia State, Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2012. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22673105/

[30] Bennett DC, Yee A, Rhee YJ et al. Effect of diatomaceous earth on parasite load, egg production, and egg quality of free-range organic laying hens. Poult Sci. 2011. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21673156/

[31] Jang SI, Lillehoj HS, Lee SH et al. Mucosal immunity against Eimeria acervulina infection in broiler chickens following oral immunization with profilin in Montanide adjuvants. Exp Parasitol. 2011. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21627964/

[32] Dubey JP, Lopez B, Alvarez M et al. Isolation, tissue distribution, and molecular characterization of Toxoplasma gondii from free-range chickens from Guatemala. J Parasitol. 2005. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17089774/

[33] Dubey JP, Sundar N, Pineda N et al. Biologic and genetic characteristics of Toxoplasma gondii isolates in free-range chickens from Nicaragua, Central America. Vet Parasitol. 2006. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16876324/

[34] Dubey JP, Patitucci AN, Su C et al. Characterization of Toxoplasma gondii isolates in free-range chickens from Chile, South America. Vet Parasitol. 2006. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16672177/

[35] Dubey JP, Vianna MC, Sousa S et al. Characterization of Toxoplasma gondii isolates in free-range chickens from Portugal. J Parasitol. 2006. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16629334/

[36] Dubey JP, Gennari SM, Labruna MB et al. Characterization of Toxoplasma gondii isolates in free-range chickens from Amazon, Brazil. J Parasitol. 2006. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16629312/

[37] Dubey JP, Su C, Oliveira J et al. Biologic and genetic characteristics of Toxoplasma gondii isolates in free-range chickens from Costa Rica, Central America. Vet Parasitol. 2006. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16567042/

[38] Dubey JP, Rajapakse RP, Ekanayake DK et al. Isolation and molecular characterization of Toxoplasma gondii from chickens from Sri Lanka. J Parasitol. 2005. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16539035/

[39] Dubey JP, Lenhart A, Castillo CE et al. Toxoplasma gondii infections in chickens from Venezuela: isolation, tissue distribution, and molecular characterization. J Parasitol. 2005. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16539013/

[40] Dubey JR, Bhaiyat MI, de Allie C et al. Isolation, tissue distribution, and molecular characterization of Toxoplasma gondii from chickens in Grenada, West Indies. J Parasitol. 2005. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16108546/

[41] Dubey JP, Gomez-Marin JE, Bedoya A et al. Genetic and biologic characteristics of Toxoplasma gondii isolates in free-range chickens from Colombia, South America. Vet Parasitol. 2005. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16105721/

[42] Dubey JP, Karhemere S, Dahl E et al. First biologic and genetic characterization of Toxoplasma gondii isolates from chickens from Africa (Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Kenya). J Parasitol. 2005. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15856874/

[43] Dubey JP, Levy MZ, Sreekumar C et al. Tissue distribution and molecular characterization of chicken isolates of Toxoplasma gondii from Peru. J Parasitol. 2004. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15562600/

[44] Sreekumar C, Graham DH, Dahl E et al. Genotyping of Toxoplasma gondii isolates from chickens from India. Vet Parasitol. 2003. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14729166/

[45] Dubey JP, Navarro IT, Graham DH et al. Characterization of Toxoplasma gondii isolates from free range chickens from Paraná, Brazil. Vet Parasitol. 2003. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14630431/

[46] Tian ZC, Zhang XC, Li JH et al. [Cloning of a species-specific gene fragment from Cryptosporidium parvum and the development of diagnostic PCR primers]. Zhongguo Ji Sheng Chong Xue Yu Ji Sheng Chong Bing Za Zhi. 2002. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12567561/

[47] Dubey JP, Graham DH, Blackston CR et al. Biological and genetic characterisation of Toxoplasma gondii isolates from chickens (Gallus domesticus) from São Paulo, Brazil: unexpected findings. Int J Parasitol. 2002. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11796127/

[48] Youn HJ, Noh JW. Screening of the anticoccidial effects of herb extracts against Eimeria tenella. Vet Parasitol. 2001. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11267752/

[49] Graczyk TK, Cranfield MR, Fayer R. Evaluation of commercial enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and immunofluorescent antibody (FA) test kits for detection of Cryptosporidium oocysts of species other than Cryptosporidium parvum. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 1996. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8600765/

[50] Sréter T, Varga I, Békési L. Age-dependent resistance to Cryptosporidium baileyi infection in chickens. J Parasitol. 1995. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7472892/

[51] Kim KS, Jenkins MC, Lillehoj HS. Immunization of chickens with live Escherichia coli expressing Eimeria acervulina merozoite recombinant antigen induces partial protection against coccidiosis. Infect Immun. 1989. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/266372